[bootlegga]

I think anyone who has seen his gigantic posts will agree he's deserving of the Typewriter award. ASLplease even told him once that his posts were too long winded and that he should shorten them...

However, in case evidence is needed;

post1725427#p1725427

post1730494#p1730494

post1729180#p1729180

post1723363#p1723363

And so on...

[Brenda]

SECONDSTH!

[Gunnair]

3rd

[canuckns]

4th

[BartSimpson]

5th

[raydan]

As long as he doesn't give an acceptance speech...

6th

[bootlegga]

We need two more votes for Khar's medal...someone step up to the plate please!

[Lemmy]

I think, before I can vote, I need to re-examine Khar's 300-odd posts in order to validate that Khar is truly deserving of said honour. I wouldn't want to erroneously endorse a nomination that, in retrospect, isn't up to snuff. That means that I must weigh Khar's contributions in three distinct manners.

First, I need to be sure that his posts aren't simply verbose soliloquies, padded for extra words like a freshman term paper. If he's simply repeating himself, sentence after sentence, that's not the intent of the Typewriter medal, is it? We want to establish that each word is necessary, contributory and supportive of the author's thesis on that particular thread submission.

Second, we need to establish that his threads are truly authored threads (requiring the use of the typewriter keyboard) rather than cuts and pastes from either forums other than CKA or some other electronic source. If he's truly crafting his responses with the use of the QWERTY-device then we need to establish that fact and consider it while weighing his nomination for this award.

Finally, we need to be sure that he's not a one-trick pony. Anyone can repeat themselves at length and ad nauseum, but to genuinely earn the typewriter medal I believe a CKA contributor must be verbose on multiple subjects without being extraneously verbose. We wouldn't, for example, want to bestow the typewriter medal on Stemmer solely for his anti-Toyota ramblings or upon ASL for his gun-nut nonesense. In other words, I don't think we want to award the typewriter medal when we really should be awarding an "axe-to-grind" medal instead.

It seems, when reviewing his posts, that he does, indeed, have something to say with each sentence and with each new post. He doesn't appear to be either simply agreeing with previous posters or parrotting that which has already been said. His posts also appear to be both original in crafting and well supported by appropriate background reading, evidentiary references and sound logic. Finally, the subject matter of Khar's posts is diverse. He has spoken about political, economic, social, legal and philosophical issues, clearly demonstrating that he possesses a well-rounded knowledge base for contibution to the forums.

So, in perusing Khar's posts, it is my opinion that he passes all three stages of the Lemmy litmus test for the typewrite medal. Therefore: 7th!

[Brenda]

No, Lemmy... This didn't and will not give you a nomination for the same award

(although I'll give you credit for the try! )

[raydan]

Nobody likes a showoff, Lemmy.

[Lemmy]

I'm not posturing for this medal or showing off. Most of my posts are short and succinct, like this:

Fuck off, Ray and Brenda.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy wrote:

I'm not posturing for this medal or showing off. Most of my posts are short and succinct, like this:

Fuck off, Ray and Brenda.

That's pretty short and succinct...

[Brenda]

It WAS an awesome post tho

[Bruce_the_vii]

I think that anymore than 10 lines and you are in danger of not a single person reading your post.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Kahr responded to my economic posts with an at length search of the Web which certainly took an effort. He's actually put a lot of effort into his response. I actually glanced his efforts over.