Tuesday, November 9, 2010

New Web-Only Ads Are Not Being Dated

Dear APA,

Although you are updating the November web-only ads, you are not dating the updates. It's better when they are dated, APA. The dates help me know whether there's been an update without memorizing what the last ad was. It also helps me make year-to-year comparisons--how many ads were there at this time in 2009 or 2008, as compared to now? It's hard to tell if the updates are undated. And if you're not going to date the updates, you could at least change the date in the the "last updated on" announcement that appears in the upper-left corner of the page in big red letters. That would help a little.

Yours most sincerely,
Mr. Zero

14 comments:

zombie said...

Updating the date of the update? That's asking rather a lot, don't you think?

Phhbbtt. Philosophers and their crazy possible world theories.

Anonymous said...

Necessarily, any organization that was able to update the date of the update would not be the American Philosophical Association, but some other organization. So when you desire for the American Philosophical Association to update the date of the updates, you desire a metaphysical impossibility to be the case.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Zreo,

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, we here at the APA are too busy planning ways to make our conferences poorly orgainzed to attend to minute details. If we had to date each new job posting, we would have to cut back on vital services or increase everyone's anual fees. Since we don't want to increase fees, we can't provide any services.

Look for new features coming to the online ads soon, perhaps as early as Fall of 2019.

Sinsneerly,

The APA

Xenophon said...

Seriously, why does the APA suck so bad? I mean, we've gotten used to it, but why doesn't someone set up an alternative APA?

zombie said...

The APA both sucks and blows, which is a a contradiction. Therefore, the APA is self-contradictory (and, as mentioned above, logically impossible) which explains its badness.

Would an alternative APA be better? If it could not be worse, then it would, by necessity, be either the same or better.

Anonymous said...

Sucking and blowing refer to the same 'act' and thus is not a contradiction!

Xenophon said...

Glad I elevated the level of discussion on this thread.

Xenophon said...

Hey, Zombie, I've been looking at the survey over at PhilPapers (the one Leiter linked to). It seems that over a third of philosophers think you're conceivable but metaphysically impossible. How do you feel about that?

(I lean towards metaphysically possible, for what it's worth. That got 23%.)

zombie said...

Being a zombie, it is not established that I have feelings. That is a matter of considerable metaphysical debate.

Or it depends on what kind of zombie I am.

But possibly, all kinds of zombies have or do not have feelings.

So, I may or may not care what a third of philosophers think re: my conceivability and/or possibility. Possibly, if I did not care, I would still believe that I do care.

Apropos of which, the word verification is "logicks," as in, your logicks is no match for my stupidity.

Anonymous said...

How come 'actual' was not an option for the question about zombies?

Bobcat said...

Norcross claimed that zombies are actual, citing the Republican Convention as evidence.

zombie said...

Speaking of updates...

I finished my last job application today (46 -- a new record!), and I'm experiencing withdrawal. What will I do with all my free time now? (Catch up on Fringe, that's what.)

I find myself checking the job listings for updates compulsively, 8 times a day. Must... have... more... jobs...

Anonymous said...

Just to keep a record of this somewhere:

Jobs 234 and prior were in the original November Web ads, 235-238 were added somewhere before today, and 238 through 242 were added today.

Anonymous said...

they fixed it!