To keep discussions relevant and accurate, how about a fomula to calculate the permitted quantity of text in a thread by using the inverse of the Pegg numbers of the musicians discussed? We could then divide the result by the (proven) Pegg number of the author of the message to ensure that only people with authority are allowed to discuss a subject. The resulting Pegg-Related Allowed Text number (or PRAT ) must be inserted in the Subject line. Of course the lower the relevance, the smaller the PRAT.
The onus would be on the originator of the thread to include the PRAT proof in the first message. The higher the Pegg number, the more text required in justification, leaving less room left for content.
To continue the thread beyond its permitted length someone could earn a kind of double word score, either by proving a lower Pegg number for the original musician (herein referred to as the performer of the first part or PFP ) or adding a reference to another musician ( the performer of the second part or PSP ), including proof of both the Pegg number of the PSP and the relevance factor of the PSP to the PFP. This would allow more Text Resulting from Pegg Extension, or TRIPE .
If the contributor then retires from the thread, they can choose to either take their DWS with them to be used to boost the ailing relevance of another thread, or bequeath it to the original thread
BTW, what is wosname Gibb's Pegg number anyway, and when someone shuffles off, do they lose their number (ensuring no-one speaks ill of them), or get an honorary promotion so they can earn a fittingly verbose send-off?
To keep score and ensure only approved ideas are discussed, we will have to appoint a Policeman Of Proper Ettiquette.
Should we allow PRAT-trading with other lists, to enable more of this Derived Results In Verifiably Erudite Language?
Oh B****R! we wont be able to mention the Peggster again until someone finds a way to divide by zero!
(Thanks to Stephen Coldwell)