Re: Reaction to TRASHionals

• From: bigflax29 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:49:21 -0000
• Message-ID: <a9sd7h+tgg8_at_...>

I didn't mean to imply that there was anything inherently wrong with 
Duck Bowl.  I certainly had a good time there.  My point was simply 
that I had scored better.  Somewhere along the way this seems to have 
been twisted into "questions written by undergrads and not edited are 
bad" and such, which I didn't say or even mean - easier maybe, bad 
no.  And you'll note that I found an example very similar to the 
Sneakers question in TRASHionals, which just made my point that 
you're likely to find questions like that anywhere.  Anyway, the ease 
of the question depends on whether you're familiar with the movie or 
not (though anyone who isn't going to get those questions after 
hearing the name of the main character may well not at all).  Someone 
yesterday mentioned those questions as punishing real knowledge, 
which I don't think is quite true - it may level out the playing 
field a bit, but someone who watches the movie a dozen times should 
still beat someone who's never seen it to the punch.  (With the 
Hoosiers question, for example, it took me a minute to process Norman 
Dale --> Hoosiers, so if there had been someone in the room who'd 
seen the film ten times, I wouldn't have gotten it over them.)

At any rate, this discussion appears to have devolved into "Why 
TRASHionals is good and Duck Bowl sucks," which I certainly didn't 
intend at all.  My original point, which stands, is merely that I do 
better in Trash than in TRASH, probably because the questions are 
written by less-experienced question writers (I count myself among 
those - nothing inherently wrong with it) and because they just seem 
to gear slightly more toward my best areas.  That's all.

Flax
NUQB