Talk:Fail-deadly

Untitled
The dead man's switch page says it is a fail-safe device. That makes more sense to me, but I don't know enough to feel confident to remove the link from this page and move it to the fail-safe page. Anyone know for sure? We should certainly be consistent, whatever the real situation is. -- S


 * Is seems consistent, look at the beginning of Dead man's switch. I used that to clarify. Besides, note that "safe" for the bomber means no risk that the bomb does not explode.--Patrick 13:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "Success-deadly"?
If a suicide bomber's entire strategy is to explode the bomb and being shot or overpowered causes the detonation of same, it seems to me as though he/she has "succeeded"! -- Jack 2006/01/13
 * No, because he did not get far enough into a thick crowd before being overpowered by officers. Besides, the term "fail" in fail-safe still stands, even though if something dissipated safely it's not truly a failure. Both terms refer to backup salvaging strategies when the original plan fails. --Geoffrey 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire page should be deleted. It is completely unsourced, and I have not seen a single credible reference ever using this term, outside of Wikipedia entries. It sounds to me like an invention of the author. - Roberto 4/13/10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.164.77 (talk)


 * It was referenced in Dr Strangelove, but that's the only time I've ever heard the term used. Spigot  Map  19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO someone should either find a valid reference for this (apparently bogus) article or have it deleted. Wikipedia is a springboard for so much personal contrivance.  It's just amazing.  Needless to say, someone will actually cite this mess (or its countless mirrors) as an authority and next year this barfy word will be on CNN.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)