Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:50 pm**

In post 449, xRECKONERx wrote:Worth 1 Umbrage doesn't work because it's a brand new thread in F62 that hardly anyone has posted in or even heard of

Fair enough.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:52 pm**

I suppose I'm not OPPOSED to giving Umbrage a title but it'd have to have the right amount of crow eating.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:55 pm**

I'm not opposed to giving Umbrage a title, I'm opposed to bad titles.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:52 pm**

Were tim's thread to take off, Worth 1 Umbrage would be all right. It just hasn't. *shrug*

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:10 pm**

In post 431, TheButtonmen wrote:By the power invested in me by some farcical aquatic ceremony and these fancy dancy wings I hereby give Nicholas1024 the title of
Ides of Mash
!

I miss Oman's "No Puns" rules. Ides of Mash is horrible.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:12 pm**

Puns make the best titles. If you think otherwise, I disagree with you WITH PASSION.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:29 pm**

In post 454, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 431, TheButtonmen wrote:By the power invested in me by some farcical aquatic ceremony and these fancy dancy wings I hereby give Nicholas1024 the title of
Ides of Mash
!

I miss Oman's "No Puns" rules. Ides of Mash is horrible.

Khan Man

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:32 pm**

He's stated before that he doesn't really like his title, sooooo

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:40 pm**

Cache Me If You Can
Premature Assassination
Comma Police
Yawesome

etc

It's not like pun titles are some new thing and they've produced some pretty great ones. (Pretty sure 1 or 2 of those were approved under Oman too, so...)

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:42 pm**

I agree with you. Cache Me If You Can was Oman, but I think that's the only one you've listed.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:10 pm**

In post 454, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 431, TheButtonmen wrote:By the power invested in me by some farcical aquatic ceremony and these fancy dancy wings I hereby give Nicholas1024 the title of
Ides of Mash
!

I miss Oman's "No Puns" rules. Ides of Mash is horrible.

just read it in a Bostonian dialect

Chevre, you suggestion was terrible

Also if you want to use that thread for Umbrage

Quantal Content

would be better
but I don't think it is siginificant at this point

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:50 am**

Propose

new rule to the title fairy thread: If your argument for/against a title is "but, but, but what about <existing title>" then don't bother. Precedence doesn't/shouldn't exist in a title thread. Titles must be good for their own sake.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:12 am**

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:14 am**

In post 461, Kublai Khan wrote:
Propose
new rule to the title fairy thread: If your argument for/against a title is "but, but, but what about <existing title>" then don't bother. Precedence doesn't/shouldn't exist in a title thread. Titles must be good for their own sake.

Would you apply the same idea to arguing against a title- "X title was shot down for Y reason and this one is the same".

I think I'm slightly off target with the idea and am hoping someone will apply it better.

Edit: Derp- it said for/against.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:33 am**

In post 461, Kublai Khan wrote:Precedence doesn't/shouldn't exist in a title thread.

In post 454, Kublai Khan wrote:I miss Oman's "No Puns" rules.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:57 am**

In post 456, xRECKONERx wrote:
In post 454, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 431, TheButtonmen wrote:By the power invested in me by some farcical aquatic ceremony and these fancy dancy wings I hereby give Nicholas1024 the title of
Ides of Mash
!

I miss Oman's "No Puns" rules. Ides of Mash is horrible.

Khan Man

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:14 am**

In post 461, Kublai Khan wrote:Precedence doesn't/shouldn't exist in a title thread.

But, but, but -- there's precedent for allowing it!

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:27 am**

I don't really care about the rule, but you will not effing take away puns. Nonnegotiable.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:02 am**

Well at least this one was older than the last.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:12 am**

In post 461, Kublai Khan wrote:
Propose
new rule to the title fairy thread: If your argument for/against a title is "but, but, but what about <existing title>" then don't bother. Precedence doesn't/shouldn't exist in a title thread. Titles must be good for their own sake.

I agree with this.

In post 467, zoraster wrote:I don't really care about the rule, but you will not effing take away puns. Nonnegotiable.

My terrible sense of humour agrees with this.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:28 am**

If I'm not mistaken the title was supported by enough people and approved by the fairy so I'm not sure why KK is considering himself the

Vi of title quality

arbiter of title quality.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:41 am**

i think after his title, you can see why he'd be opposed to bad puns
but this was a good pun

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:10 am**

Technically, my title is a homonym, not a pun.

And we're all arbiters of title quality. The majority just happens to be wrong.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:22 am**

puns are often made out of homonyms.

Wikipedia wrote:The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play which suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect.[1][2] These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use and abuse of
homophonic
, homographic, metonymic, or metaphorical language.

Which side do you really want to take? Shakespeare's pun-filled awesomeness or Samuel Johnson's dour dictionary writing? (Johnson is the one that said, "puns are the lowest form of humour.")

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:11 am**

Speeding through a title means fewer eyes to pick out flaws.

Mafiascum.net

Yet Another Dance of the Title Fairy: Change Up