Page 1 of 1

You have been warned...

Posted: 13 Feb 2010, 13:45
by Erudite
As I've long suspected, the majority of the people on HL are a figment of my imagination: ... =152130214

Or am I the figment of someone else's imagination dreaming that I am real. :?

I'm sure the answer's on Wikipedia!

Posted: 13 Feb 2010, 14:21
by boudicca
But the facts on Wikipedia aren't real :wink:

Posted: 13 Feb 2010, 14:26
by Pista
There are facts on wikipedia?

Posted: 13 Feb 2010, 14:29
by boudicca
:lol: We actually had to do this exercise as part of my Open University course, which is basically trying to tell us to watch out for Wikipedia when we're referencing as it's well dodgy!

Posted: 13 Feb 2010, 18:52
by Erudite
boudicca wrote:But the facts on Wikipedia aren't real :wink:
Then it's well suited to being a figment of my imagination. ;D

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 10:50
by markfiend
There are only about a hundred real people in the whole world.

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 10:57
by Bartek
you've just distroyed my life, now it's time to revange.

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 12:10
by timsinister
Why was Anna Richardson plugging Railcards at the end? She on a retainer? As a journalist myself, I know that's dodgy. Mainly because I'm not getting any kickbacks myself!

I'd dispute the facts there, as I use Facebook to create, check and attend social events with plenty of my Facebook friends.

Secondly, as a matter of courtesy, I also 'friend request' people who turn up in my photos. As many of you know, I do take a few so I've got hundreds of people listed who I might have only met such people once.

But that's Bing news for you.


Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 14:21
by Maisey
The survey was conducted and financed by Railcard. The "expert" at the end was thus a plant.

It's a shame, because as someone who's fundamentally against facebook anyway I'd like to take the stance of this article. What they've failed to even mention is whether the word friend as used on facebook has any relation to the real word definition of the term.

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 15:10
by timsinister
I suspect they weren't going for deep social commentry - which is a shame, because you make a good point.

Still, I don't think it's utterly soul-destroying - like I said, it can be used for real-world social planning, and night-time recollection for the 'hazy' amongst us - like myself!

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 18:41
by Maisey
It's by no means without it's uses, I just resent how quickly it's become a lifestyle necessity (much like the mobile phone before it), thus my decision to opt out.

Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 19:10
by timsinister
Hey, I'm all for running against the current! But there has to be an upper limit of course, such as protesting at this massive conformity of wearing clothes for example.

Yes, it's become horrifically pervasive. But a decent sociologist would probably be able to argue Facebook only succeeded because people want and need some kind of all-embracing online filofax, chatroom, website thing.

My post-work lager is possibly disabling my succinctness sensors.


Posted: 15 Feb 2010, 20:53
by markfiend
The thing that worries me about Facebook is the way people seem perfectly willing to surrender every aspect of their privacy to it. :|