Nordkapp Runners and New Social Media (Usenet is so last century)

Same here.

 

You're just going to have to be philosophical about it.

 

Ditto. Although I admit to being sad enough to navigate to:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/

and clicking on the "Philosophical Health Check" icon which takes you to:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php

Where I received the score of 20%. One of the "tensions" was related to
saying it was OK to drive a car somewhere when it wasn't strictly necessary,
but also agreeing that one should not damage the environment unnecessarily.
Good thing they didn't have a question about riding a bike strictly for
pleasure.

FFS.

 

Can't you work a web browser then?

http://twitter.com/#!/nordkapp11

 

Works OK if you go through from http://www.philosophypress.co.uk
first.

Stupid results though, as they're really just forcing you to interpret
words in one way or another, then using those answers to pick up
apparent contradictions. For instance,

Is bollocks. Just because I think it's a matter of taste doesn't mean
I shouldn't be able to exercise my own taste, as it were.

Anyway, I got 33% (after fixing one I'd mis-answered).

 

You too eh? Yes, it's bollocks, like the one I quoted. It's assuming
a) that driving is damaging the environment unnecessarily and b) that
just because I could walk means that driving is unnecessary.

 

20%, but judging by their justifications for my contradictions, it's a
complete crock of shite.

 

I thought it a shortened version of "May God speed you along your
journey", or some such bollocks.

Yeah, me too, something to do with warding off evil spirits.

 

Tried that: it's fucked. 404

 

13% here. I would have had a 6% score but I misread "The 2nd World war is a
just war" statement

I thought it said "The 2nd world war is just a war" which I thoroughly
agreed with.

 

Sorry, I just don't _do_ Twitter.

 

Someone up there has corrected the link.

You can also take your pick from this lot.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/

Might try "Taboo", looks like it's designed for ukrm, even mentions
chickens !

 

Same here.

 

snap

I missed a "not" in another question and had 16%

 

Quite. Exactly what I got. I did wonder whether it was borked, TBH.

 

that was the other one I had a tension with, and I agree with your
summation of "is bollocks".

 

Does seem borked I got the same results too. I just thought that since
it was about taboos and rituals associated with death, food and
sexuality violating strong social norms then it's probably normal on ukrm.

 

No mention of bikes at all from what I could be arsed to look at. And
bikes being invisible, we all know in these parts is downright fucking
typical but that is not the end of it is it? It follows from that, that
the whole thing is utter fucking bollox. This and
if, as champ implies, they can't even use unambiguous English means that
any conclusions they or you or any other **** draws from it is not worth
the electrons it is displayed with. but that as we know from our recent
experiences with the dumpy burd is typical of those who engage in
psychobabble for a living. They are worse than politicians because at
least you can argue with those cunts.

 

That in itself is not anything anyone with half a brain should concern
themselves with but the fact those behind that bollox offer themselves as
masters of understanding of the human condition should be.

 

<waves>

Pete Fisher and I are local to provide moral guidance and to pour what
remains of you away!

Boxerboy