[arg_discuss] English Gargoyle ARG?

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

> It's not that I /know/ it's not an ARG. It's that I'm a skeptic first

> and more than willing to accept that it's something lame (whereas "lame"

> is roughly defined as "woohoo, this has piqued my interest!", "oh. it's

> THAT? jesus christ."). If it went further (and it certainly could with


So, if you think it's cool it's an ARG, and if you think it's lame, it's
not an ARG. It's not possible to have an ARG you personally think is kinda
lame, but other people might enjoy? I object to defining argness by
cool-factor.


> I would /hate/ for "ARG" to devolve into a useless TLA such as CMS has

> (content management system, now so loosely defined it can refer to blog

> software, Microsoft Word, or Unix's "cat"). And, no, I have no list of

> checkboxes on what /I/ consider an ARG. Is "chaotic fiction" any better?

> Would you consider this chaotic fiction?


I would also hate for ARG to be so watered down nobody knows exactly what
it's referring to. But I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors by
arbitrarily assigning the "cool" term of ARG to some things, while
ignoring other things that fit the bill but don't pique our own personal
interest.

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com