Nothing says lovin' like the government watching your every move

So now "no thing" means "thing"? What have you been smoking and can I have some? That must be some good shit.
 
Inkara1 said:
So now "no thing" means "thing"? What have you been smoking and can I have some? That must be some good shit.
Click to expand...

<sigh> You couldn't even get that right. I said "refers" to a thing not "means" a thing.

See if this vernacular helps:

Words

mean

stuff
 
There is this really nifty button called the "multi-quote" button. It's the little one with the " and the +.
 
tonksy said:
There is this really nifty button called the "multi-quote" button. It's the little one with the " and the +.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the order in which the quoted posts appear is dependent on the order in which they are selected.
 
jimpeel said:
<sigh> You couldn't even get that right. I said "refers" to a thing not "means" a thing.

See if this vernacular helps:

Words

mean

stuff
Click to expand...

Sort of like how your head is stuffed up your rectum so far that you don't even realize what an ass you're making of yourself, right?

Words are something I work with every day. You don't see me bitching at you for shit such as putting food and chemicals in the same bag at the checkstand at Wal-Mart.

jimpeel said:
Keep in mind that the order in which the quoted posts appear is dependent on the order in which they are selected.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of really stupid posts in my six years here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is No. 1, but it certainly ranks in the top 10.
 
Inkara1 said:
I've seen a lot of really stupid posts in my six years here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is No. 1, but it certainly ranks in the top 10.
Click to expand...
Does it seem to you that his point is that he does it that way to make his point. Since nobody but him ever actually gets or even notices the point it all seems rather pointless to me. Tell it to Oblio and Arrow.
 
chcr said:
Does it seem to you that his point is that he does it that way to make his point. Since nobody but him ever actually gets or even notices the point it all seems rather pointless to me. Tell it to Oblio and Arrow.
Click to expand...

He has a point? Huh... learn something new every day.
 
Inkara1 said:
Sort of like how your head is stuffed up your rectum so far that you don't even realize what an ass you're making of yourself, right?

Words are something I work with every day. You don't see me bitching at you for shit such as putting food and chemicals in the same bag at the checkstand at Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

And you never will be able to bitch at me for that because I don't do it.

I've seen a lot of really stupid posts in my six years here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is No. 1, but it certainly ranks in the top 10.
Click to expand...

The posts will be quoted in the order you select them. If you select A then B it will be arranged as

A
Click to expand...
B
Click to expand...

If you do the opposite, they will be arranged thusly

B
Click to expand...
A
Click to expand...

Seems sort of stupid to have the answer before the question doesn't it?

If there is relevance to the order of the quoted posts then you should be appreciative of this information. Ingrates, however, are not so disposed.
 
jimpeel said:
Seems sort of stupid to have the answer before the question doesn't it?

If there is relevance to the order of the quoted posts then you should be appreciative of this information. Ingrates, however, are not so disposed.
Click to expand...

o_O

What was the whole point of your little rant on the order in which posts get selected for the multi-quote? Bringing that up makes no sense at all. Someone mentioned that you can use the multi-quote instead of individually quoting people's posts with a separate post for each quote. You then came out of left field with the statement that the order in which you select quotes affects the order in which they show up in your post. While that is true... what was the point of mentioning it? First, we all know that. Second, who has been posting stuff in the wrong order? Third, why can't you simply click posts to quote in the order you want themn to appear?

I can only guess that you said that in order to make the rest of us so dumbfounded wondering where the hell that came from that you would have time to escape before we recovered.
 
The point, Jim, is that you make a slew of posts instead of one. One might accuse you of trying to up your post count....but that would be silly, wouldn't it?
It would simply be easier on the reader if you made on large post instead of 4 or so short ones.
You have the ability to arrange the one post as you see fit.
 
Inkara1 said:
o_O

What was the whole point of your little rant on the order in which posts get selected for the multi-quote? Bringing that up makes no sense at all. Someone mentioned that you can use the multi-quote instead of individually quoting people's posts with a separate post for each quote. You then came out of left field with the statement that the order in which you select quotes affects the order in which they show up in your post. While that is true... what was the point of mentioning it? First, we all know that. Second, who has been posting stuff in the wrong order? Third, why can't you simply click posts to quote in the order you want themn to appear?

I can only guess that you said that in order to make the rest of us so dumbfounded wondering where the hell that came from that you would have time to escape before we recovered.
Click to expand...

Merely information for the uninformed, of which I was one. I was not aware of the usage of the multi-quote until it was mentioned by Tonsky. Should I have wasted numerous posts scolding him/her for mentioning something which "we all know that" to quote you. The fact is that we don't "all know that" unless you consider yourself to be everyone on this board.

Upon playing with the function, I found that there is an order to it so I mentioned it for the edification of all. I was unaware, as I was unaware of the function, that "we all know that".

I apologize if I made you have any feelings of inadequacy or dumbfoundedness. It was not intentional.
 
tonksy said:
The point, Jim, is that you make a slew of posts instead of one. One might accuse you of trying to up your post count....but that would be silly, wouldn't it?
It would simply be easier on the reader if you made on large post instead of 4 or so short ones.
You have the ability to arrange the one post as you see fit.
Click to expand...

I was appreciative of your bringing the function to my, and other's, attention. I was theretofore unaware of its usage.

Upon playing with it I found that there is a contingency associated with its use. I merely posted that fact as a note to all which, I have found, has been greatly underappreciated.

Can we move on, now; or are there any others who would like to castigate me for trying to be helpful?
 
chcr said:
You know, I once suspected that neutronium was the densest substance know. I now stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that would be Osmium or Iridium as the debate still rages on which is actually the densest. It depends upon the manner one uses to test the density.

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question44640.html

Osmium or Iridium depending on who you believe.

Osmium wins because the specific gravity of Iridium is very slightly lower than Osmium.

Density, or volumic mass, is a measure of mass per unit of volume.
Specific gravity, now usually called "Relative density" is the number obtained in comparison to water. The higher it is the more dense it is.
1 cc (cubic centimetre) of water weighs 1 gram and therefore has a relative density of 1.
Osmium is 22.57 but Iridium is only 22.42

Iridium wins when the density is calculated using the "space lattice" method, which is considered to be more accurate, when comparing it to Osmium.
An atom of Iridium has 77 protons, 77 electrons and 115 neutrons. At.wt. 192.22
An atom of Osmium has 76 protons, 76 electons and 114 neutrons. At. wt. 190.2
Osmium has a crystal structure that is "Hexagonal"
Iridium is a "Cubic face centred" crystal.
This crystal structure is how the atoms align with each other to form the material itself.
A good example to understand this is with Carbon. A very dense and very hard form is DIAMOND where the carbon atoms are very tightly and closely bonded together. A very soft form is GRAPHITE, where the carbons atoms are very loosely packed and easily parted from each other.

The Iridium structure's "space lattice" is more compact than that of Osmium such that more protons, neutrons and electrons fit into a unit volume and thus it is denser.

You can see some crystal structures here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure
Click to expand...
 
Sorry.

Degenerate matter. Some debate about the actual name but "neutronium" is the most widely accepted.

BTW, still not nearly the densest though. Sorry you missed it but thanks for proving my point. :D

jimpeel said:
Can we move on, now; or are there any others who would like to castigate me for trying to be helpful?
Click to expand...
:rofl4:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top