Poll

[ Fill out Poll ] [ View Poll Results ] [ Discuss Results ]

if you can do a rec set in a mathematically connected way -- say, with 6, 12, and 18 recs togethers -- are you obliged to do so?

[personal profile] cmshaw -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] lightgetsin -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] reginagiraffe -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] muccamukk -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] aerye -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] melannen -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] sanj -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] gisho -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] neotoma -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] therienne -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] pocketmouse -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] rivkat -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] gnomad -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] jadelennox -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] resonant -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] zana16 -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] afrikate -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] meri_oddities -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] northern -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] starfish -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] laylah -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] happydork -- yes, of course. these things must be balanced! arbitrary and unrelated numbers of things are just sloppy posting.
[personal profile] bkwyrm -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] gloss -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] norah -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] adina -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.
[personal profile] eileenlufkin -- no, despite the leading nature of your question there is still nothing morally superior about numerical patterns.