Hard News: The Public Address Word of the Year 2010
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
late entry as above, but I'd like to support the adding of egg as a superbly local word
-
I predict a late run on egg, now we must surely have banished 'twatcock' to the over-exposed category, in keeping with the formerly of TV, P@#$ H#$%^.
No? Oh well, one can only try.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The problem with twatcocks like P**l H***y and W*****n P****s is that they don't stay banished unless you put a stake through what passes for their hearts. WOTY is that stake.
I mean, look at how many times P**l H****s has come back...
-
I'm going to work at getting "conspirational" (courtesy of DPF) into the lexicon for next year; I'm already trying to work it into the thesis.
-
Sacha, in reply to
P**l H****s
?
-
3410,
Phil Harris! Get with the programme.
-
There's a slight flaw with the voting form - it's possible to give the same word your three votes, which seems to defeat the purpose of the ranking system.
-
Indeed. Rather than this point-based system, what we need is STV.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
P**l H****s
?
Short loud opinionated TV host, formerly followed the news on One.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Phil Harris! Get with the programme.
Nice! Had to look at the link, as that's my brother's name :-D
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
There’s a slight flaw with the voting form – it’s possible to give the same word your three votes, which seems to defeat the purpose of the ranking system.
Tell Hadyn! Got to go to the airport now.
DM me -- I'm carrying your Trons prize!
-
3410,
There's a voting form??
-
Sue,
I assumed we each got 3 votes
so i gave all 3 of my votes to http://twitter.com/twatcock -
Hadyn Green, in reply to
The slight flaw cannot be easily fixed. So we work on the honor-system, any duplicate voting from now on will be deleted from the sheet.
I assumed we each got 3 votes
I'm not quite sure why you would think that from "give us your choice for the top three words of 2010", but you don't.
-
Sue,
so should we re-vote then?
-
Hadyn Green, in reply to
so should we re-vote then?
No, just voters from now on!
-
recordari, in reply to
P**l H****s
We can only be thankful it hasn't yet been as a politician.
ETA: Just typing 'paul' in google, the 6th most common search string was heartening.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Ohhh
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
The slight flaw cannot be easily fixed. So we work on the honor-system, any duplicate voting from now on will be deleted from the sheet.
Actually, for small voting populations I prefer cumulative voting. I find it tends to highlight the preferences better, and allows people to go all in on their personal favourite.
So instead of deleting multi-votes, you could simply value them as 3pts for a 1st preference, 2 for a second preference, and 1 for a third preference.
Or 9,3,1 respectively for a clearer outcome.
-
What, no twatcock?
-
What, no twatcock?
Well, from the article, twitflocker sounds like a related term.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
twitflocker
I know a number of Twitflockers, actually.
-
Sue,
I’m not quite sure why you would think that from “give us your choice for the top three words of 2010”, but you don’t.
becuase i'm evil like that
-
recordari, in reply to
I know a number of Twitflockers, actually.
What, real genuine placeholders?
[Insert WOTY here]
-
Heather Gaye, in reply to
W*****n P****s
OK, first time over, I read that as "wanton penis". Hanging around with jo hubris a bit too much, p'raps
Post your response…
This topic is closed.