Experimental until stated otherwise.

Curiousity

May. 31st, 2007 at 8:33 AM

naanima: ([Misc] Coffee for a good morning)

Do it for the statistical reasons (I am really curious): join

fandom_counts.

You are not required to do anything, just join. There's no posting and it isn't used for petition reasons or other lofty causes, they're just trying to figure out how many of the 13 million users on LJ are fandom people. They have breached the 10,000 mark, and I’m really curious as to how many fandom-people are out there on LJ.

ETA: Link edited.

Location:typing
Mood: awake

Comments

( Leave a comment )

sesame-seed.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 12:56 am (UTC)

(Err. Are you sure that's the right comm? :D;;;)

Link | Reply | Thread

archangelbeth wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 01:51 am (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit perplexed by it, too -- I'd feel more comfortable joining up if it there were a public post inviting, well, joining.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 02:07 am (UTC)

Sorry! Edited now.

The reason why I'm not worried - I have no incriminating stuff on my lj that would get me deleted.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

archangelbeth wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 03:49 am (UTC)

Yah, well, I've got angels and demons and the occasional dubious-consent thing. Friends-locked, I note, but some of the other stuff's not, and I don't want to give up my membership in the long-quiet malakim_porn...

But all vessels are over 18. O:p

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 05:46 am (UTC)

angels and demons and the occasional dubious-consent thing.

Ohhh, that would get you in trouble alright.

But all vessels are over 18.

But aren't they practising sexual acts that can be constitued as illegal. ;p

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

archangelbeth wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 03:33 pm (UTC)

I'm sure it's all illegal somewhere... There's probably a law against angels having consensual sex, somewhere!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 10:49 pm (UTC)

To be fair I don't think the Bible ever said Angels can't have sex, so on a theological level you are safe. Considering how certain sex acts (ans positions) are still illegal me thinks you are properly breaking laws. ;p

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

archangelbeth wrote:

Jun. 1st, 2007 06:44 pm (UTC)

Drat, I can't remember if the Grigori are full biblical or not, at the moment. Arguably, angels are not allowed to have sex with human women, though! *grin*

Yeah, it's the rest of it that is more likely to shock, shock, I say, the flocks and herds.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

Jun. 2nd, 2007 02:08 am (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Grigori were full Biblical (I have this sneaky suspicion they may have been a bit too much for the Christian Bible, but I'm pretty sure either the Koran or Torah had them). Yes! Angels can't have sex with women, nothing saying they can't have sex with men.

shock, I say, the flocks and herds.

*sniggers*

Link | Reply | Parent

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 02:06 am (UTC)

(Changed! Thanks, it is early, and I'm only on my second coffee).

Link | Reply | Parent

i-smile.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 03:59 am (UTC)

Fifty people joined in the time it took me to do it, and another hundred since then. Either there are more people on here than I expected, or this is the time when most of us are online.

Link | Reply | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

May. 31st, 2007 05:47 am (UTC)

Jesus, they are almost over the 20,000 mark. This is becoming slightly concerning. But ohhh, CURIOUSITY!

Link | Reply | Parent