Talk:Adequacy.org

message: Please add new messages to the bottom of the page
Some might describe Adequacy as a free-er version of The Onion. They, unlike the Onion, took reader submissions openly. But they were much subtler than the Onion, for one has to be incredibly narrow to find the Onion believable, while one was never sure if the Adequacy was pulling your leg or showing you the way to eternal salvation. Furthermore the Onion rode a one-trick-pony of satirizing the writing style of newspapers and magazines in the pseudo-intellectual pop culture pinnacles of Time, Newsweek, or one of the dozens of "local" rags that were really owned by Multinational newspaper conglomerates like Gannnett, made largely of reprints off the newswire services. This pony was 'furious victorious', for generations of US kids had grown up under the cage of the money-controlled  poverty of information brought about by the conglomeration of the newsmedia in the 20th century. As the internet finally opened daybreak on the souls of millions, they cheered the ravages the Onion placed on their jailkeepers as birds might cheer a cat being smashed on the road. 
However this focus limited the onion, its authors unable to branch out sometimes, forced to keep churning away fake horoscopes (an idea perhaps stolen from The Bug), stat shots, or any number of other satires on US Today or the New York Times. Adequacy authors did not share this limitation. They could do anything. Some parodied public service announcements, editorials, or most especially, parodying enthusiastic web board posters, or simply writing crazy rants. A better description of Adeuquacy might be comparison with the work "A modest proposal", a satirical 18th century work that suggested eating babies: the satire of said work being often lost on many readers who from it recoil in disgust. 
Recoil in disgust might be a frequent reaction among Adequacy readers, except
that a much much more frequent reaction would be to take the story absolutely
seriously, log on, and post several dozen paragraph-rants about how horrible
the story was, how reprehensible the morals of the author, how devoid
of even the most basic ability to reason, etc etc etc. This was often considered by the Adequoids to be a mark of high honor and success. I must
point out, however, that many of these posts were probably fakes too,
designed to illicit "oh you idiot" diatribes from people who felt
superiorly "in" on the original satire (but were in fact, out
on the second.) But how could one really tell? That was the fun of it.
Or maybe the horror.
Theoretically one such story, about how AMD processors are a favorite of 'hackers' for their low cost: a low cost brought about by hand-manufacturer by child laborers in sweatshops, brought the wrath of the actual AMD people,
as the last quote posted on adequacy.org before its total demise was 
something akin to "we will destroy you and put your editors in jail", signed
by an AMD official.
On the other hand, that may very well have been a joke too, for one can never
be sure on Adequacy what is reality and what is illusion. Often the notion
of "reality" had gotten a little boring for the authors, as they frequently
decided that no matter how horrible it was, just pointing that out to people
would not accomplish anything. So why not twist it so oddly that people
had to notice? 
A few pages of adequacy can be found on 'the internet archive'. 
For example: 
http://web.archive.org/web/20010924214222/http://adequacy.org/
----
=== What's going on? This is far better than the version published. ===
(207.189.98.44)
:My first thought was that the text had been moved from the article for some reason - but it appears it was never part of the article.  So I would guess that it's been put here by mistake.  You might be able to incorporate the info here into the article (without loosing anything already there that is useful).  Look out for any problems of style and "point of view"  - I'm too fuzzy headed to read it carefully and check it.  -- sannse 23:45, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: (207.189.98.44)
:My first thought was that the text had been moved from the article for some reason - but it appears it was never part of the article.  So I would guess that it's been put here by mistake.  You might be able to incorporate the info here into the article (without loosing anything already there that is useful).  Look out for any problems of style and "point of view"  - I'm too fuzzy headed to read it carefully and check it.  -- sannse 23:45, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? This is far better than the version published. 

message: Ed keeps adding in snide remarks about Roger Williams, that keep getting edited out for irrelevancy. While I don't particularly care to get into Ed's petty arguments, is there any way of phrasing "omg localroger is a hypocrite!!!1" that it's not irrelevant to this article? Perhaps we should start a new article for Roger Williams and let Ed scrawl all over that? I don't think Roger would mind.
: I'm not Ed.  --209.204.160.47 03:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear 209, we know you're not Ed, sweetie. But then, it wasn't you that made the above-mentioned changes; it was edslocomb.net (216.254.50.6). Do try and keep up. Kyz 11:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking of axes to grind... 

message: Why was Adequacy shut down? (and paticulary why on September 11?)
You have been trolled 24.85.197.194 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutdown 

message: The site was featured on TechTV's The Screen Savers show, I've got a 14MB video file here of the segment. The computer hacker story originally had 9000+ comments when it crashed and there are plenty of sites still referencing adequacy.org today as a Google search which should show it was notable... or perhaps notorious is a better term. spiralx 11:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please expand the article to establish notability, citing reliable sources.  Thank you. -- Perfecto  19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: *Are there any reliable sources that have written about this website?  Wickethewok 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I am also not a fan of the SA Goons, and I'd love for Adequacy to be able to take credit for "Lunix", but the parenthetical removed by Action Jackson IV is, in fact, correct. Adequacy did not go online until July of 2001. The archive of Jeff K.'s page on SA has references to "Lunix" as far back as August of 2000.  Seventypercent 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lunix"

message: :Image:Adequacy.org Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Adequacy.org Logo.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Adequacy.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020227131542/http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01%2F09%2F11%2F2048256&mode=thread to http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01%2F09%2F11%2F2048256&mode=thread
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com/article/0%2C1902%2C28983%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304062417/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?Mode=Archive&Date=10%2F19%2F2001 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?Mode=Archive&Date=10%2F19%2F2001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified