4 ms·

> You could do merchandise, books, characters He was talking about free merchandise, books, characters then?

aninhumer 10y ago
They also said: > You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting. An example of how it could be used to deliver important messages. And merchandise can be part of the message anyway. (I should however note that I just edited my comment to include the word "simply".)
- hartpuff 10y ago
  AFAIK there's nothing to stop someone creating a character called Boaty McBoatface that teaches 4 year olds why the ice caps are melting, without having its internet joke name attached to a real life $300 million scientific research vessel.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Well yeah, but that's not the same. And exactly what problem does attaching the name to a real boat cause? I think the objection to the name is far more childish than the name itself. "Oh no no no, we can't call it that. This is a serious boat, for serious grown ups."
    - vidarh 10y ago
      If only Spitting Image was still around. This whole thing is like designed for a solid round of mockery.
    - hartpuff 10y ago
      Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?
        hartpuff 10y ago
        Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference? So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?
        aninhumer 10y ago
        >So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
        hartpuff 10y ago
        My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time. Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name? To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?
        aninhumer 10y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't. (Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)
        carc 10y ago
        Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.
hartpuff 10y ago
Wow, it's extremely irritating to see this (parent) post downvoted by people who may not realize (till after downvoting) that what I replied to was edited - from denying what I said to admitting it, making my reply look redundant.

They also said: > You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting. An example of how it could be used to deliver important messages. And merchandise can be part of the message anyway. (I should however note that I just edited my comment to include the word "simply".)

hartpuff 10y ago
AFAIK there's nothing to stop someone creating a character called Boaty McBoatface that teaches 4 year olds why the ice caps are melting, without having its internet joke name attached to a real life $300 million scientific research vessel.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Well yeah, but that's not the same. And exactly what problem does attaching the name to a real boat cause? I think the objection to the name is far more childish than the name itself. "Oh no no no, we can't call it that. This is a serious boat, for serious grown ups."
  - vidarh 10y ago
    If only Spitting Image was still around. This whole thing is like designed for a solid round of mockery.
  - hartpuff 10y ago
    Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?
      - hartpuff 10y ago
        Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference? So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?
        aninhumer 10y ago
        >So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
        hartpuff 10y ago
        My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time. Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name? To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?
        aninhumer 10y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't. (Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)
        carc 10y ago
        Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.

hartpuff 10y ago

Wow, it's extremely irritating to see this (parent) post downvoted by people who may not realize (till after downvoting) that what I replied to was edited - from denying what I said to admitting it, making my reply look redundant.