Apropos Rob’s 18 “orderly, natural and facilitatory cataloguing of genres”... here is the problem: given that there are exactly 8.5 regular posters on LuLa, that would leave 9.5 threads orphans at any given time. Not good for Lula’s reputation for diversity and inclusion.
A typical accountancy mistake, closely related to the bad logic that suggests that playing the lottery is nonsensical when, as we know, somebody always ends up scooping it up. If you would like me to illustrate an example of poor, very bad logic, consider this: you join a club, stay there paying your dues for forty years or so, then, one day, in a fit of pique you decide to ask your dog for advice. The dog yawns, licks its ass and and you take that as a sign that you must quit. You hand in your resignation, then ask the Board of Directors if you can still use their car park and restrooms. They say, no, we are really sorry, but you are no longer a member, and all those privileges you enjoyed for forty years are no longer yours. You go home and shoot the dog. That is a example of poor thinking.
Now, those 8.5 regular members registering on the Richter scale - are there really so few, or is it just another cheap mathematical trick? - might well be pretty versatile souls, posting all over the place. This would render random sampling just, well, random, and not worth that proverbial, and soon to very expensive, hill of beans.
Furthermore, those activist posters make up a tiny fraction of the several hundred visitors to the site, many of whom may well start at A and read all the way through to Z, both A and Z included, whereas a dedicated visitor such as I would perhaps never do that, avoiding certain sections like the plague.
Orphan threads, unlike orphan works, still have rights, even if not active parents!
;-)
