The "what level of hell are you destined for" test has been making the rounds. Here's my scores. The Level 7 one is odd. I thought I answered negatively to all the violence-oriented questions. Hmm.
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Moderate |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Very Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | High |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very High |
| Level 7 (Violent) | High |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Low |
I ended up on the 3rd level. I think that I'd kind of enjoy it actually. After living in Eastern Washington, I wouldn't mind an eternal rain--maledict, cold and heavy. It figures that there'd be a dog there though...
Well, even hell can't be perfect.
Posted by: Rachel at May 9, 2003 10:53 AMSo, after you take the test for Dante's inferno,
you have to ask the question "WWGD"? From what I
was taught about "Him" by his uniformed
affiliates, He was very concerned about the
very worst stuff that you did.
So, would He scan your list, from Dante's
worst to best level, until He encountered
a category in which you scored "very high",
and then plop you down there?
The reason I ask is that I am a level 6 or a
level 2, and from what I recall of Dante's
place, I'd 'way have a level 2 address.
Another thing. Does God take suggestions about
which of Dante's hells a person belongs in? I
ask this because I would like to nominate the
writer of this comment posting script for level 4.
Wow, is the comment thing that bad?
What do you hate about it?
Or am I missing the joke?
Posted by: jeffy at May 11, 2003 10:29 PMIt's no joke! I had too much coffee yesterday,
and I hated at least 3 features:
1) mandatory surrender of email address
2) non-notification of requirement of email address
when preview button is pushed.
3) different text justification in the comment box
than appears in the preview or posting. User
entered crlfs are preserved, but automatically
generated ones are not.
4) odd placement of the current cursor location
during some automatic justification operations.
I'm pretty sure you didn't write this, Jeff. I've
seen this thing elsewhere, and seen the same
behavior.
I hated a bunch of other things yesterday, too,
that I don't feel as strongly about today :-)
Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Dan L at May 12, 2003 11:48 AMWell, #1 I can do something about. Anonymous comments are now enabled, so you can enter as little or as much personal info as you like.
Which makes #2 moot.
#3 is tricky. The control I have is whether your hard returns are implemented or not. If they're not then all your text gets run together unless you put html formatting tags around your lines or paragraphs. I don't really expect my readers to have that level of html savvy, so you're stuck with the "hard returns are implemented, other wrappage isn't" which is actually pretty common behavior these days (right or wrong).
#4 not sure what that's about.
Posted by: at May 12, 2003 12:58 PMWhat do I mean by odd placement of the current cursor?
Okay, type in that line ("what do I mean by the
odd placement of the current cursor"). Move point
to just before "cursor", and type backspace.
Instead of point jumping to the previous line,
as in all editors, the word current jumps down
to the next line.
Okay, now type a blank, right where you are
sitting. Instead of the blank being inserted,
and the the word "current" remaining on the line,
the word "current" jumps to the previous line,
and point moves to the beginning of the line.
The point is not wrong at any time. It is the
unexpected motion caused by the subroutine that
does the justification. And really, if I am the
only person to complain about it, I'm not sure
it is necessary to fix my complaints, unless they
resonate with something that you also find
distasteful.
In a very slightly related joke, check out
ethicspapers.com. Does it strike you as funny?
Thanks again for listening. I'll be better soon.