| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 20:12:15
The requirement for reviews posted this time is that they be as long as possible. I have chosen this theme because it mirrors the challenge that inspired these rounds and because it is objective. For the purposes here, length is defined by the number of letters, numbers, currency symbols, units etc. Spaces and punctuation do not count.
Please post a specific link to your longest review (or links if you have more than one review with the same number of letters) and give a clear spoiler warning if appropriate. Please do not link to any other reviews.
You are welcome to post existing reviews, but particularly encouraged to write new ones fitting the requirement. If a longer review gets approved, please delete your previous link(s). (Striking through is not deleting.)
Like all challenges, this will be completely open-ended, due to the (admittedly decreasing) delay in approvals and the fact that inspiration does not come at will. Good luck! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 17:21:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
I did a Google search on IMDB for Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis and found no results on Harlan County, USA's pages. Furthermore, that simply wouldn't make sense since Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis has to do with inhaling volcanic dust.
The source I used defined it as being black lung disease, which is mentioned on the I.M.D.B. page. However, it might be more accurate to say that it and black lung are both pneumoconioses. That said, (i) it is a factitious word and (ii) this is easily close enough compared to other inaccuracies on the site (rabbits/hares, monkeys/apes, ducks/canaries etc.), so the precedent is set that it is acceptable.
quote:
Floccinaucinihilipilification is the act of declaring something to be worthless, so it only makes sense that floccinaucinihilipilificatious should mean pertaining to the act of valuing as worthless. For example, murderous describes the person who murders/wants to murder, not the person who is murdered.
-ous is not as precise as that. It pertains to the valuation, but it's not intrinsically defined in the suffix whether it refers to the act itself or the value.
Fair enough. I was splitting hairs anyway. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 14:48:25
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
I did a Google search on IMDB for Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis and found no results on Harlan County, USA's pages. Furthermore, that simply wouldn't make sense since Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis has to do with inhaling volcanic dust.
The source I used defined it as being black lung disease, which is mentioned on the I.M.D.B. page. However, it might be more accurate to say that it and black lung are both pneumoconioses. That said, (i) it is a factitious word and (ii) this is easily close enough compared to other inaccuracies on the site (rabbits/hares, monkeys/apes, ducks/canaries etc.), so the precedent is set that it is acceptable.
quote:
Floccinaucinihilipilification is the act of declaring something to be worthless, so it only makes sense that floccinaucinihilipilificatious should mean pertaining to the act of valuing as worthless. For example, murderous describes the person who murders/wants to murder, not the person who is murdered.
-ous is not as precise as that. It pertains to the valuation, but it's not intrinsically defined in the suffix whether it refers to the act itself or the value. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 04:06:22
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I just posted for fun, not for reasons for rejection, but...
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
I doubt the movie actually involves Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
According to the I.M.D.B., it does.
Where? I did a Google search on IMDB for Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis and found no results on Harlan County, USA's pages. Furthermore, that simply wouldn't make sense since Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis has to do with inhaling volcanic dust.
quote:
quote:
Your use of non-floccinaucinihilipilificatious implies that it is the affliction which is not judging something to be worthless. I think non-floccinaucinihilipilificated would be more what you meant.
It would be plausible that floccinaucinihilipilificatious might mean pertaining to the act of valuing as worthless, but when I checked with regard to submitting the review, it seemed to just mean worthless.
Again, what's the source? Dictionary.com doesn't have floccinaucinihilipilificatious. Floccinaucinihilipilification is the act of declaring something to be worthless, so it only makes sense that floccinaucinihilipilificatious should mean pertaining to the act of valuing as worthless. For example, murderous describes the person who murders/wants to murder, not the person who is murdered.
Yay debating the meaning and use of 25+ letter words.  |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 16:54:18
I just posted for fun, not for reasons for rejection, but...
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
I doubt the movie actually involves Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
According to the I.M.D.B., it does.
quote:
Your use of non-floccinaucinihilipilificatious implies that it is the affliction which is not judging something to be worthless. I think non-floccinaucinihilipilificated would be more what you meant.
It would be plausible that floccinaucinihilipilificatious might mean pertaining to the act of valuing as worthless, but when I checked with regard to submitting the review, it seemed to just mean worthless. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 16:44:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The first of mine has now been rejected twice, so I thought I would post it here:
"Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis: miner non-floccinaucinihilipilificatious affliction"
I can't say I'm surprised since
a. I doubt the movie actually involves Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, and
b. Your use of non-floccinaucinihilipilificatious implies that it is the affliction which is not judging something to be worthless. I think non-floccinaucinihilipilificated would be more what you meant. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 16:35:55
56 letters, which is almost as long as one can get without breaking the 60-character mark. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/29/2007 : 01:32:44
The first of mine has now been rejected twice, so I thought I would post it here:
"Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis: miner non-floccinaucinihilipilificatious affliction" |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 20:12:39
I believe that this one is 51. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 10:20:22
Well, there's already a page space boggler when a film has a particularly long title ... such as Borat, or some of those 19th century documentary shorts.
This can result in a FWFR covering up the Vote Edit Report options of the film directly below on the page. 
I'm sure we can all wait till benj gets back and he can decide on the best combo of aesthetics and functionality.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 09:13:48
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Hey, Sal, did you ever hear back from Benj about that 50 character maximum problem?
Nope, but then it's a programming thing and he understandably doesn't want to deal with those while he is travelling. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 18:36:26
Hey, Sal, did you ever hear back from Benj about that 50 character maximum problem? |
| Salopian |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 15:51:43
Thanks. |
| Sludge |
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 19:00:33
Hope this works
This looks to be 49.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 11:32:26
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
49 Letters.
I'd voted on this before - love it! You gotta say it out loud to really appreciate it |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:14:41
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
What d'ye think Salopian?
Nope. But I also doubt that Benj will change things for this challenge's benefit, so it's likely that the de facto limit will be 60 characters. |
|
|
