![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
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/
(207.189.98.44)
The adequacy archive, in full, is now up at www.adequacy.org
first of all, it was part of the article, if i remember correctly.
second of all, it is really poV and full of speculation, faulty logic, bias, artsy language, and everything else that makes life worth living.
third of all, the wikipedia 'editors' hate my natural style of writing. even though they have no way to track what ive edited because i do it from various computers, the style i have makes the average wikipedia editor want to throw up.
In particular, the following text is not true at all:
No such thing ever happened, because the editors never, ever altered the contents of a comment. (It is possible that something of this sort may have happened to a diary or a story submission; but that's a different story.)
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 removed this text from the article:
I don't think unsupported speculation like this belongs in an encyclopedia. Neilc 30 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)
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)
Seriously, why was it shut down? -- angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder that too, but it seems to me that they chose that date intentionally in a trollish way when they were done with it and wanted to go out on a high note. 74.78.98.109 ( talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
You might try the Wayback Machine to get a feel for this defunct website.-- Ancheta Wis 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
uhm, they did post a thing claiming the people from AMD had said they would crush them. thats what was on the page. whether it was true or not, who knows. but eliminating this from the article? thats just sad.
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. [1] Seventypercent 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)