The Geek Forum

Main Forums => New Geeks on the Block => Topic started by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 07:47:52 PM

Title: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 07:47:52 PM
Name's Maurissa, and I need something else to do to keep me from burning my genetics textbook at the moment (ugh, grad school...in biology...). Lo and behold, here I am.

I'm your typical nerdy mahjong-playing, ReBoot-loving, occasional video-game-playing bibliophile. Who likes to experiment in the kitchen. (And when I say experiment, I use that term to its full potential).
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 07, 2010, 07:53:23 PM
... keep me from burning my genetics textbook at the moment ...

Are you cold?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 07:57:13 PM
Hi, Rizzy!  :-D
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 07, 2010, 07:59:08 PM
Hey, I get it! Maurissa --> Rissa --> Rizzy.

amiright?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Wunderkind on July 07, 2010, 07:59:59 PM
I totally missed the word "textbook" and thought you were burning your genetics and I thought, "Wow, now that's suicide with dedication."
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 08:00:16 PM
I'm so cold, I'm viral.

No, it's just giving me a migrane, and I want to relieve some stress.

And yeah, that's I how I got that name. My friends made me make a Halo profile, and gave me that name.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 08:00:41 PM
I'll be damned. Ivan is quick!
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 07, 2010, 08:01:34 PM
... burning your genetics ...

I call that "cocktail hour".
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 08:02:24 PM
COCK LOL
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 08:02:57 PM
We're odd ducks, here.  :-D
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 07, 2010, 08:03:19 PM
I'll be damned. Ivan is quick!

I'm still working on "xolik".
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 08:05:56 PM
What's that terrible smell? Oh jeeze, it's my tagline. It's weeks old! Time to change it.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 08:06:08 PM
We're odd ducks, here.  :-D

The odder, the better ;)
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 07, 2010, 08:09:04 PM
What was your latest kitchen experiment?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 08:12:32 PM
@xolic: is xolik mean "exo"? then something?

@ivan: kitchen exp = i made cumin truffles, and a strawberry, black pepper, balsamic vinegar choc. cake.

My best has to be my sweet curry choc. cupcakes, though!
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 07, 2010, 08:16:48 PM
Xolik is Xolik. I've always been and always will be. Z'oh-lick. It means nothing. From nothingness it arose and to nothingness it will return.


I'm gettin' all philosophical up in dis bitch.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 08:19:41 PM
From nothingness it arose and to nothingness it will return.

Like the universe.
And people who stand outside with signs who say "god hates you, you will go to hell," (well, I hope they return to nothingness).
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 09:22:10 PM
*waves* 'Ello.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Clear_Runway on July 07, 2010, 11:49:52 PM
so, is this theads title supposed to be kirby, or what? looks funny.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: 12AX7 on July 07, 2010, 11:51:00 PM
 Three huddled kittehs?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 11:51:31 PM
yup. dancing kirby.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Novice on July 07, 2010, 11:54:03 PM
Hello!

0'.')=0   0=('.'0
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 07, 2010, 11:56:35 PM
Lol, kirby K.O.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: 12AX7 on July 08, 2010, 08:29:01 AM
+ . . .
Quote
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 1 hours.

Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Vespertine on July 08, 2010, 05:18:08 PM
I'll be damned. Ivan is quick!

Shhh!!!  You weren't supposed to tell anyone that.  It was supposed to be his secret....
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: pbsaurus on July 12, 2010, 05:35:49 PM
We're odd ducks, here.  :-D

We also have the even contingent who are sharks, the irrational contingent who are leopards, and the imaginary contingent who are unicorns.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: xolik on July 13, 2010, 12:07:43 AM
We also have the even contingent who are sharks, the irrational contingent who are leopards, and the imaginary contingent who are unicorns.

fuckin furries  :x
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: TheJudge on July 15, 2010, 03:32:30 PM
I'm your typical nerdy mahjong-playing, ReBoot-loving, occasional video-game-playing bibliophile.

OMG U FUCK BIBLES????


Welcome! I like your style.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 15, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
To take a page from the Izzard (with obviously some choice vocab changes):

"Yes, I fuck your bible! I AM you bible, AND I fuck it!"

Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 15, 2010, 06:29:43 PM
Is that a sexy tune Mrs. Badcrumble?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Arnox on July 16, 2010, 03:05:35 PM
Hm, that's a pretty good avatar if I do say so myself.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 16, 2010, 04:29:27 PM
Hm, that's a pretty good avatar if I do say so myself.

Which one?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 16, 2010, 06:09:41 PM
Do you liiiike red?

elaborate please.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Novice on July 16, 2010, 06:38:20 PM
I retract my epic fail and will leave you with simply this:

I can't get ze fucking trees . . Damn! I will kill everyone in the world!

/vegetarian painter
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Arnox on July 17, 2010, 11:55:44 PM
Oh, rizzy's.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 18, 2010, 01:23:22 AM
Oh, rizzy's.

So why do you say "Hm, that's a pretty good avatar if I do say so myself"?

Did you design that avatar?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 18, 2010, 06:55:34 AM
Do you like bread? I'VE GOT A FRENCH LOAF!

'Ello Sue. I've got legs!


I retract my epic fail and will leave you with simply this:

I can't get ze fucking trees . . Damn! I will kill everyone in the world!

/vegetarian painter

-But where shall we go for our honeymoon?
Oh, in a ditch, covered in petrol on fire...
-How terribly romantic, Adolf!

Oh, rizzy's.

Thanks...? (Unless this is going somewhere as a topic that I am not expecting in the least).
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Arnox on July 18, 2010, 09:24:13 PM
Guys, calm down. I'm just saying that it was an awesome avatar.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 18, 2010, 09:33:09 PM
I wish snow white really did have a gun - it would have made the disney movies less lovey-dovey. But then they wouldn't be the classic movies we all know and love, right?
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 19, 2010, 10:33:52 AM
Hm, that's a pretty good avatar if I do say so myself.

Guys, calm down. I'm just saying that it was an awesome avatar.

Arnox, the phrase "if I do say so myself", when used correctly, is a disclaimer that acknowledges personal bias. For instance, if you were to bake a cake, you might say "It turned out quite well, if I do say so myself", meaning, "Of course, I am biased, since this cake is the result of my efforts, but nonetheless I consider it a worthy cake." Personally, I often use it ironically, to also imply that I don't give a rat's ass what people think of my personal biases, but it is more frequently used ingenuously.

I know that many people use this phrase as though it means simply "in my opinion", but many people are thoughtless butchers of the English language.

I hope this helps you in some measure, although I doubt you will take this advice in the spirit is was offered (an entirely disingenuous gesture of heartfelt concern). In any case, I'm glad I wrote this, for, if nothing else, it is yet another brilliant little gem of a post in a long line of brilliant little gems.

If I do say so myself.


Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Demosthenes on July 19, 2010, 10:38:57 AM
That was a good explanation, if I do say so myself.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Probie on July 19, 2010, 10:41:08 AM
I think it sounds much better with an even prefixed to it.


Even if I do say so myself.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: ivan on July 19, 2010, 11:13:07 AM
That was a good explanation, if I do say so myself.

Ha ha hardy har har.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: pbsaurus on July 19, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
RDRR
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Arnox on July 19, 2010, 02:59:31 PM
Arnox, the phrase "if I do say so myself", when used correctly, is a disclaimer that acknowledges personal bias. For instance, if you were to bake a cake, you might say "It turned out quite well, if I do say so myself", meaning, "Of course, I am biased, since this cake is the result of my efforts, but nonetheless I consider it a worthy cake." Personally, I often use it ironically, to also imply that I don't give a rat's ass what people think of my personal biases, but it is more frequently used ingenuously.

I know that many people use this phrase as though it means simply "in my opinion", but many people are thoughtless butchers of the English language.

I hope this helps you in some measure, although I doubt you will take this advice in the spirit is was offered (an entirely disingenuous gesture of heartfelt concern). In any case, I'm glad I wrote this, for, if nothing else, it is yet another brilliant little gem of a post in a long line of brilliant little gems.

If I do say so myself.
Oh fine then.

I wish snow white really did have a gun - it would have made the disney movies less lovey-dovey. But then they wouldn't be the classic movies we all know and love, right?
Speak for yourself. :P
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 19, 2010, 03:14:27 PM
Have I mentioned how much I love the fact that such a discussion (well, more like a statement with some retorts) is taking place?   :-D

So many people misuse various parts of the English language that the mistakes have become commonplace to the extent where no one, (as in, the "average" person,") realizes they actually are mistakes. It's nice to see syntactical discussions for once!

On that note, I think it is perfectly acceptable for prepositions to be used to end sentences with.

>_>
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Demosthenes on July 19, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 19, 2010, 03:27:36 PM
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

In my mentally-fatigued state, reading that twice is something I had to do to make sense of..........it.....crap! I failed :(
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: pbsaurus on July 19, 2010, 04:11:01 PM
Case in point--average person.  Most improbable that one could exist.  A characteristic of a person may be compared to the same characteristic in others and an average calculated.  For a person to be average, one would have to measure every conceivable attribute and there would need to be a person whose variance to every x-bar is zero.  The existence of god is even more probable than that.
Title: Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)
Post by: Rizzy on July 19, 2010, 04:14:28 PM
Case in point--average person.  Most improbable that one could exist.  A characteristic of a person may be compared to the same characteristic in others and an average calculated.  For a person to be average, one would have to measure every conceivable attribute and there would need to be a person whose variance to every x-bar is zero.  The existence of god is even more probable than that.

more like average person in terms of what you learn in an educational institution when you're young. most either don't care, don't pay attention, or don't learn it, so most people don't know it. that's what i meant. Hence the ""