lmjb1964 wrote:*drags furniture in front of the door* There, that should keep the Outside at bay for a few minutes. I keep drifting further and further behind because of those damn heretics out there! But here's some stuff. The first few things are for StratPlayer:StratPlayer wrote:Dracomax wrote:But is glaring with intent the same as glaring intentionally?
Only if your name is Aqualung. Ooops, that was *staring* .
Actually, it was "eyeing."
And thanks, I never knew that semantic satiation was an actual thing, with a name and everything.But it says that was post 713 for you. Not to rain on your parade or anything.StratPlayer wrote:[EDIT to add: Hey! Wow -- 700th post!!! And at the top of the NewPage!
Great poetry from Rule110 and taixzo! And some profundity from mathrec:One of the most insightful things I've read on the OTT (as opposed to some of the inciteful ones...)Spoiler:mathrec wrote:I think the Inquisition has done a great service to the civility of our forum. It is the perfect kind of Inquistion: actively engaged, supported by the community, and
ineptineffective. The recognized punishments of the Inquisition give the suggestion of being pleasant, then fall disappointingly short.
So steaks smell really good when you're cooking them (apologies to our vegans), but when the Inquisitor doesn't stop, the heretic gets a charred, barely edible steak after enduring the promise of something savory.
It's a fitting mock punishment for mock heresy. We joke about the Inquisition for mock offenses (since we have enough sects to guarantee that any dogmatic assertion is heretical to someone). But it sets the tone for how we keep each other in line. When we have real transgressions (that threaten the civility of the forum), then we've already set the right tone. We're used to taking lighthearted threats from each other when we violate our mock forum conventions, so we've been responding well to lighthearted (but serious) suggestions to stay away from actual mockery or flame wars.Rule110 wrote:mscha wrote:I hskSpoiler:ate to have to aer cSpoiler:(again), but can y'all please considlSpoiler:utting down or spoieplSpoiler:ering part of the quote, if you r?Spoiler:y with a single line to a long post
I do agree with mscha that it's good to spoiler long quotes, but this cracked me up. And I can't spoiler it, since we can't nest spoilers.
I just want to say, hi, macraw! Always nice to hear from you!
Re: buffygirl and baobabs:Spoiler:buffygirl wrote:AND - I assert my assertion on NP 688 regarding whether or not they are baobab trees is worth noting! (feeling a little overlooked).
Since you've mentioned it, others have probably commented on it. I've been sure all along they were baobabs, and didn't really think it was controversial. But I do think you have found the Tree of Inspiration, or the One True Tree, whatever you want to call it, that was the model for GLR. Where was that tree from, anyway? (If this has already been answered, never mind, I'll find it eventually.) But nice work!
*sound of pounding on the door* Eek, better hurry up...mscha wrote:Spoiler:lmjb1964 wrote:I thought this quote from that article was interesting: "The use of baobab trunks to support arcane inscriptions is common throughout Senegambia. Such trees are known generically in Wolof as guy mbind (baobab of writing)..." I think that quote, and the relevance to XonqNopp's username, are excellent evidence for Senegal.
Except that they're the wrong kind of Baobab tree. The OTC ones are definitely Grandidier's, which are only native to Madagascar.
The African Baobab looks very different.
Hmmm, suppose you're right. Sorry, XonqNopp! And of course, mscha, I think your Madagascar image is all the proof we need, I think, that Cuegan are in Madagascar.
I knew about the Bacon number, but not the Erdős number. I published a scientific paper, but I'm pretty sure none of my co-authors had an Erdős number. I wonder if I have a Bacon Number. I was in a local zombie movie, and my sister was an extra in one of the Batman movies. I'll have to check it out. OK, turns out that two of the peopl in that movie had a Bacon score of 3, so I guess I'm a 4!Kieryn wrote:Quick note on the BG number: If you are never quoted by BG either directly or in a chain, you simply do not have a BG number. If you are directly quoted, your BG is 1. A high BG number means you get quoted down a long chain, which ultimately gets quoted by BG. A high BG number is therefore the rarer case and could be thought of as more prestigious. (Edit: Well done lmjb1964!)]Spoiler:
Okay and by popular demand here it is: The BlitzGirl number: http://xkcd-time.kieryn.com/Default/Credits
The credits table is also now sortable (thanks mscha!. Also you and newpixbot would now be in first place together.)
Yay!! I win!! Do I get cake? Also, I see that we've heard from BlitzGirl. Whew! I was getting worried...ergman wrote:Alright. I did a Sestina. It wasn't easy, but damn if if was fun. I went for the 11 syllables per line rule as well, though apparently that isn't mandatory. Suffice to say I did a lot of counting on my fingers:Spoiler:In Time we heed certain creeds: the sea is big
Revealed by our prophets: the river is small
Cuegan's brief rare dialogues: the tree is neat
Recorded, hid in footnotes: the fire is old
Mystic exposition: empty, beautiful
And of course lord Randall's own words: wait for it
When I first stumbled all alone into It
A panel as per thrice a week, nothing big
Two folk on a beach, so zen and beautiful
Left it alone thinking it something small
Returned later and saw not panel of old
An oh so slow changing image, I thought 'Neat'
Curious about the rules of all things neat
I wiki'd and found a religion 'bout it
In needle pulled form, 400 pages old
I feared to blitz, for time was scarce, pages big
I joined in, threw in my voice, though it is small
I could not bypass something so beautiful
I Learned the terms, the mad tongue so beautiful
I met the folk so kind, funny and neat
Hunted for the molpy, secretive and small
The varied creation pile, I fed some to it
Speculated heresy, theories big
For food I gave sorbet to replace the old
If time ended I could not go back to the old
I've changed, witnessing this thing so beautiful
I can't undrink from the salty sea so big
I forever shall regard the trees as neat
There's double meaning when I say wait for it
The man I was pre-OTT was someone small
Outside now throws my way many matters small
Narnia style, will I one day grow too old?
Ok, that worry's senseless, do it ignore it
Have faith that OTC's forever beautiful
Believe in GLR, science-god so neat
He knows what he's doing like the trees so big
~It needs small words , sestina the beautiful
I'm a whole six stanzas old, and its still neat
Though I'm tired of it's 39 lines; so big~
Well, there you have it. Very melodramatic, as many poems are. Coma time for me now. Have fun
Oh. My. God. That was absolutely beautiful. I got a little choked up.Eternal Density wrote:Hmm, lmjb1964 is an interesting outlier on the data page. Or is that an error?
Probably not the first time I've been called an interesting outlier.
Valarya, that spinning chocolate joy video was cool! I want one.
And kenmelken, molpies should definitely be in the Wiki. Someone should definitely do that. *looks around for volunteers* Well, maybe by the time I reach the future, someone will have stepped up.
*sound of door starting to split open* Ok, don't have long now...
Vytron nicely summed up some of my thoughts about the OTT:higgs-boson came up with the most amazing footnotes I've ever seen. And it made me finally look up "interrobang."Spoiler:Vytron wrote:The reason is the thread goes something like this:
Something great is posted.
Not mentioned still.
Oh, there it is, appreciation by a blitzer (coma-blitzer, treker or ketchuper)!
It seems people of the present are more interested about what is going on now, and there's some kind of rush feeling to read up to the last page of the thread, while True Pilgrims of Time don't, and they have all the time in the world to read every post carefully and appreciate it (so, after I catch up to the 45 pages that I skipped, I'll read again the pages from 670 onwards again, from the blitzer perspective - I'm sure I missed something I read because of the rush! - read but not appreciated by me, the "regurgitation" helps with that).)*crash as door is broken upon and furniture knocked over* Aagghhh, time's up. Hope to see you all again soon...higgs-boson wrote:"Hey, let us play FootNoteMemory!"
"Wow, I like that!?"H2SO4
"You certainly would! The rules are very easy to understand!"C55H70O6N4Mg
"He, sweeeeeet!C6H12O6 ... ehr, what Do you mean, very easy?"
"First of all you create a lot of foot notes. Then you mix them. ..."C6760H10447N1743O2010S32
"... and the reader forgets the foot note number before he had scrolled down!
"Hey, I already did that. It's called 'Ph.D Thesis'."
"d'oh.C16H13ClN2OSo raise the difficulty and rephrase!"
"Did I mention that there's indeed a kind of 'memory' game based on associations?"
"No. And now shut up."H2O
sulphuric acidIf I only had an interrobang at hand...
beautiful woman, dead if overdosedBonus question - where did that quote come from?
beautiful woman of the 21st century, dead if overdosedMeaning that the foot notes aren't sorted.
chlorophyll fNothing is ever easy.C17H23NO3
GlucoseThis is a self-referenced footnote.
sleepy thingieComa time!
Will you look at that mess? This is the result of the site bullies bullying. If he had only done the sensible thing and made one post per point I could have replied to the one point I was inspired by (the quoted bit of Vytron) without a lot of snipping and spoilering with all its attendant bringing down the Internet due to unmatched tags. And another thing. Information folding is never a good idea. Keep spoilers for when you're really in danger of spoiling something for someone. If scrolling is a problem for you that doesn't mean you should order everyone else to shrink their stuff - get a touch pad; scrolling will become fun.
While I'm on the blower, I've reduced all y'all's "knows Turing" number to 3 - you can now tell your friends that you know someone who knows someone who knew Alan Turing. If that's how these numbers work. They may be base 1 instead.
EDIT dunno why, I removed a closing quote and a matched pair of spoilers but didn't find the real problem.