The Factory Floor

1:11 AM

@JDługosz I would think: literarily. However, it is one of those words that doesn't look right on the page. My apologies for ruining your sentence. Literally is a word that both retains its original meaning (of the the original meaning of a word) and its ironically used non-literal meaning as an intensifier. I should read more carefully when correcting.

JDługosz

4:18 AM

A good editor, as I learned back in the days of print, knows the general voice and tone of the authors. I recall good ones and horror stories. Anyway, I only use literally in its denotation and make fun of people who use it to mean not-literally. A good use of irony is hard to do properly, and can be applied to any word; most uses of literally don’t pull it off and it comes across as if they don’t know what it means.

M i ech

5:57 AM

Do we have a question asking HOW vampires comb their hair or apply make-up if they don't reflect in a mirror? I did quick search, but found nothing.

Worldbuilding Meta

6:36 AM

0

Q: Do we need different tags for [horror] and [cosmic horror]?

There are two tags horror and cosmic-horror. I was wondering if horror alone was enough. Cosmic-Horror is a bit too specific and does not appear much different from horror. Thoughts?

Pavel Janicek

9:40 AM

@Miech When asking it, think about what question applies as accepted one. This one sentence so far seems being on verge of off topic.

Pᴇᴛᴇ

@Miech - some questions like this are better answered within chat. We throw ideas around here, and some resolve into actual questions. You could argue that it's only humans who can't see the reflections of vampires (but vampires can).

Similar question on SF&F - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/38466/…

Secespitus

9:57 AM

@Miech Blind people putting on Make-Up might be a good reference for this kind of problem

Hey guys, just wanted to ask why this question about a matriarchal society is still closed. I think it fits the site but nobody else has answered anything different.

Pavel Janicek

@Secespitus As you were mentioned on meta answer, that question currently has 2 votes for reopen. As I have also enough priv to cast vote, I will try to read the question and if I consider it inside scope I will cast a vote

@Secespitus Vote for reopen

Secespitus

10:17 AM

@PavelJanicek Thanks for the feedback.

Pavel Janicek

But now the question is quite narrow that simple "yes" is acceptable answer

Secespitus

Wouldn't a simple "yes" also need additional "because" to justify it being a valid answer?

Pavel Janicek

Yeah. I am oversimplyfying if I want to make argument

Secespitus

I am still confused that this question looks on-topic and the only feedback on the Meta-Post and the chat of the user look good, but it's still closed. I am trying to understand why this is the case as it feels like I am missing something about the scope of the site.

Pavel Janicek

11:28 AM

@Secespitus I recently learned that wrong title is all you need to get question put on hold

Secespitus

@PavelJanicek But changing the title should allow the question to be reopened. This question was edited but not reopened and nobody told the author (and me) why the question is still not a good fit.

Pavel Janicek

@Secespitus Reopening takes time. Reopening my question took about a day

It dwells in reopen queue and once it gets 5 votes it si being reopened

It currently has 3 votes to reopen

Secespitus

@PavelJanicek Yeah, but the Meta-Post was written and answered on February 26. This is more than a week. I thought we had more people with enough rep to reopen / comment on this question that are active once a week.

Pavel Janicek

11:52 AM

@Secespitus I starred the original question of yours here in chat, it hopefully attacts more attention. But my assumption is "no one did cast original vote for reopen"

Secespitus

Thank you @PavelJanicek

James

2:42 PM

mornin all

Transcript for