RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules?

RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

BitaTruble -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 4:48:55 PM)
"Oh, yes, the grovelling. You were here for the grovelling." "Eat any good books lately?"

Sinergy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 4:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelGA2 "Live Long And Prosper" "Today Is A Good Day To Die" "Resistance Is Futile" "To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before" To boldly split infinitives that nobody has split before. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 4:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied Please. How can anyone think they were being ganged up on and ridiculed when we didn't even know who they were until they outed themselves? Maybe they are close personal friends with that psychiatrist who told everybody how to get in touch with him claimed I outed him because I tried to get in touch with him. Some people apparently got their brains from the shallow end of the gene pool. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

nefertari -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 5:17:05 PM)
Things like I am in awe of my master, I trust my master, etc just amuses the hell out of me. If you have to tell another how to feel about you, what does that say about you? I'm in awe alright. Not the kind he's hoping for, though, I dare say. [:D]

krys -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:01:23 PM)
If you lift someone else's copyrighted material from a site that starts off with a request not to copy it elsewhere, and post it as your own, don't expect a lot of sympathy when it gets re-lifted. Kinda difficult to pull off the whole wronged party stand when you have commited plagiarism.

krys -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:08:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelGA2 damn, talk about overkill, i made it to about rule #38 before it got monotonous...reallt now. sounds extreme...even for Goreans (not sure if this is a Gorean relationship...but (please forgive me for reteating myself) DAMN!!! pushes the 128 rules and the writer right back over into the BDSM camp Thanks, but no thanks. We're not taking the blame for this one. This one is all yours. ;)

ImpGrrl -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:24:05 PM)
Females are inferior to Ferengi, and thus wouldn't understand the Rules of Acquisition. quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip quote: ORIGINAL: michaelGA2 i think the Ferengi Rules Of Aquisition would have been easier to memorized, and there's 286 of them...LOL My God! There is a bigger nerd here than me. I had completely forgotten about the Ferengi Rules of Aquistion, and never knew their number. Now, if only there were females who knew about the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition and knew their number. If I ever find a sub, that is the first thing she will have to learn. Who says I'm not a sadist? Failure to get them all correct and in order will result in 40 lashes. Cheers, Michael

Noah -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen OMG! Trekkies! Run for it! E Yeah, but credit where it's due. If it weren't for the trekkies no one ever could have said: "I am dyslexic of borg. Your ass will be laminated" I'm often a little mortified at what people choose to make public, seeming to assume that others generally will appreciate it the same way the first person does. It isn't usually the content that mortifies me but rather the naive assumption that someone else is going to read it the the way it was intended ... when in some cases this is not even possible except by a sort of miracle. Where you say something doesn't just affect the volume or inflection of the statement. It can radically affect the meaning itself. The same string of notes can have very different meanings as it appears in a march and a waltz and a ska song. The fact that dictionaries try to list the meanings of individual words shouldn't seduce us in to believing that propositions (like those in the list) are some sort of hermetically sealed bearers of meaning unaffected by external factors.. Cue the Judas kiss. My hunch is that the list in question bears meaning to that couple in a way that we just don't don't have access too. I do think its public meaning--taken as a set--is silly. But few things are easier than grabbing something from the hand of another--something precious to them--and tossing it carelessly around to show how easy it is not to care about. But what's best illustrated by this sort of exercise is a fact about the tosser, not one about the thing tossed. I hope that this list's private meaning for this couple can survive their decision to put what belongs in the nuptual chamber on display in the marketplace-or even bloom under these trying circumstances. That would be nice. Sometimes it is bold, even courageous, to decide to share a given thing. It can be a beacon to other people who may have thought they were alone until they found that sharing. But sometimes, I think, it is just ill advised. And people make mistakes. If this thread hadn't arisen out of the private e-mail exchange we read about I'd have a much easier time accepting Crappy's assertion that it was undertaken as a public service. Overall I think it would have been a better day if three people had shown more restraint.

twicehappy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Nanu Nanu "toH Hov leng ngotlhwI' Darur 'e' vIQub" "Well you looked like a trekkie to me." (in Klingon)

Sinergy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah Yeah, but credit where it's due. If it weren't for the trekkies no one ever could have said: "I am dyslexic of borg. Your ass will be laminated" I am laughing so hard I am crying. Thank you, Noah. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 6:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen OMG! Trekkies! Run for it! E Yeah, but credit where it's due. If it weren't for the trekkies no one ever could have said: "I am dyslexic of borg. Your ass will be laminated" I'm often a little mortified at what people choose to make public, seeming to assume that others generally will appreciate it the same way the first person does. It isn't usually the content that mortifies me but rather the naive assumption that someone else is going to read it the the way it was intended ... when in some cases this is not even possible except by a sort of miracle. Where you say something doesn't just affect the volume or inflection of the statement. It can radically affect the meaning itself. The same string of notes can have very different meanings as it appears in a march and a waltz and a ska song. The fact that dictionaries try to list the meanings of individual words shouldn't seduce us in to believing that propositions (like those in the list) are some sort of hermetically sealed bearers of meaning unaffected by external factors.. Cue the Judas kiss. My hunch is that the list in question bears meaning to that couple in a way that we just don't don't have access too. I do think its public meaning--taken as a set--is silly. But few things are easier than grabbing something from the hand of another--something precious to them--and tossing it carelessly around to show how easy it is not to care about. But what's best illustrated by this sort of exercise is a fact about the tosser, not one about the thing tossed. I hope that this list's private meaning for this couple can survive their decision to put what belongs in the nuptual chamber on display in the marketplace-or even bloom under these trying circumstances. That would be nice. Sometimes it is bold, even courageous, to decide to share a given thing. It can be a beacon to other people who may have thought they were alone until they found that sharing. But sometimes, I think, it is just ill advised. And people make mistakes. If this thread hadn't arisen out of the private e-mail exchange we read about I'd have a much easier time accepting Crappy's assertion that it was undertaken as a public service. Overall I think it would have been a better day if three people had shown more restraint. This is a lovely post, Noah. To add a bit to it, only 7% of communications between humans having a conversation are the words used by the parties. 93% of it is non-verbal cues, vocal tones and inflections, word choices, etc. So here on the internet we have people who are trying to communicate using a medium (language) which is prevented from the other 93% of the communication which people expect. Then you have people who are surprised when things they write are misinterpreted by the people reading them. I would say to them that they failed to include the other 93% in their post. But that is just me and I could be wrong. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 7:11:58 PM)
Rules? That reminds me of the "Doms" we get in here occaisionally who tell us we're all wrong because we don't do things "their" way.

akisha -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/19/2006 7:56:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Nanu Nanu E That's from Mork & Mindy not Star Trek hehe [;)]

jojoluvr -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 12:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: akisha quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Nanu Nanu E That's from Mork & Mindy not Star Trek hehe [;)] ah, see -- an excellent example of Sinergy's note re: the importance of non-verbal cues. i assumed E deliberately used the Mork and Mindy line to thumb her nose in a humorous way at the Trekkie-speak... perspective -- gotta love it! [:D]

LadyEllen -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 2:53:22 AM)
Akisha - top of the class! Jojoluvr - making fun of all those Trekkie phrases, yes - not the Trekkies themselves though (they are still people, so I'm led to understand) Twice - you will have to sit through re-runs of Mork & Mindy. No wonder Star Trek impreses you - your television education is clearly lacking LOL! E

twicehappy -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 3:17:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Twice - you will have to sit through re-runs of Mork & Mindy. No wonder Star Trek impreses you - your television education is clearly lacking LOL! Sorry LadyE, i watched enough episodes of Mork and Mindy to love Robin Williams but not like the show. Now a hot sweaty young Captain Kirk or Commander Riker, yummy.

ShreveportMaster -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 4:59:17 AM)
E, now you will be tormented not only by Trekkies, but by inferior technology as well... I am Pentium of Borg, Division is futile, you will be approximated [8D] And no, Goreans are not cavemen, We simply live according to the natural Order. Yes there are some idiots who claim to be Gorean who try to reproduce the storylines (which are actually parables) and give Us a bad name, but there are Sick fucks who seriously torture and damage women under the guise of BDSM and give them a bad name too. Don't judge any group by the lunatic fringe hangers on. I wish you well, Shreve (edited to note the remark about Goreans was not directed at Lady Ellen)

LadyEllen -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 5:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Twice - you will have to sit through re-runs of Mork & Mindy. No wonder Star Trek impreses you - your television education is clearly lacking LOL! Sorry LadyE, i watched enough episodes of Mork and Mindy to love Robin Williams but not like the show. Now a hot sweaty young Captain Kirk or Commander Riker, yummy. No - sorry, there's only one Star Wotsit for me, and thats Star Wars. I could maybe appreciate Star Trek more, if it were'nt for all the morality stuff in it - it just comes across to me as a bit sickly and preachy. Its not all bad though - the original series was excellent - its just the later stuff where it all went wrong for me. The original was a classic. And I have to say, its me thats out of step on this, and millions of trekkies cant be wrong (probably). Now Star Wars on the other hand is wonderful, not because its particularly original - it is after all a mix of Japanese samurai stuff and classic myths - but thats why it is so wonderful, albeit that I, II and III were progressively poorly told compared to IV, V and VI. And who cant appreciate the attraction of Han Solo, Princess Leia, Anakin Skywalker (esp when his eyes go red), and of course Jabba the Hutt? Are you seriously suggesting Jabba doesnt have it over Kirk or Riker in the looks stakes? You're right about Mork & Mindy you know. At the time, it was wonderful - but they have re-runs on over here, and alike with other re-runs I make my kids watch them sometimes. Just not as good as they were - we and the world have moved on. E

Sab -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 7:56:40 AM)
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/ There ya go! :D

caitlyn -> RE: Anyone ever seen a more stupid set of rules? (10/20/2006 8:16:09 AM)
Live and let live. If there are happy with these rules and agree to them, why not just leave them alone?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875