The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)
-   Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   request for advice from the mods (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=29093)

Meister 05-19-2008 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanderman
You could probably come up with a formula to determine level of userness derived from a combination of concrete values, number of posts, length of membership, average posts per day (which is really just #posts/length-membership, but would be it's own variable, as it'd be important independent from the other variables), etc.

Or we continue just looking at names and going "hey yeah, I know them" or "who's that?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osterbum
Nobody likes cunt.

Torque sure doesn't.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Torque
I like wang.


Torque 05-19-2008 04:10 PM

I'll be honest... I'd be AWFULLY surprised if we weren't BOTH doing it on purpose. Seriously tho, I do like wang. The word tho, not the body part.
Tho I am partial to my own...

Meister 05-19-2008 04:15 PM

On that note I saw a few seconds of a WWE show the other day and there's apparently a guy now named Jimmy Wang Yang, and I thought well, someone signed a contract without double-checking.

Ryanderman 05-19-2008 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meister
Or we continue just looking at names and going "hey yeah, I know them" or "who's that?"

But that's too heavily biased by the activity of the observer. My overly complicated impractical hypothetical formula would provide a less subjective evaluation, while still maintaining an input from the subjective assessment.

Professor Smarmiarty 05-19-2008 05:48 PM

Your formula needs to include the level of wankery present in posts. A higher level of wankery makes for a more memorable user generally.

Fenris 05-19-2008 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seil
It's now officially way too much f****ing work to report each of you c***s. You **** ****ing ****************** ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *****.

Hey, Seil's finally becoming cool!
Quote:

(=3)
Wait disregard this.

Satan's Onion 05-19-2008 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumenskir
See, my problem with cunt is that it hasn't really evolved to be used in multiple grammarry ways. You can construct a sentence entirely out of fucks, but you can't really use cunt as, say, an adjective, or even anything other than 'disrespectful epithet describing a women'. Also, any case where you really want to say cunt is also an opportunity that you could have been using twat, and twat is clearly the better choice in such situations.

Now, see, I think part of the problem with that (the relative difficulty of use of "cunt") is that we don't use it enough. See, while both "fuck" and "cunt" have been around in our language for quite some time, "fuck" has a much more extensive recent history (soldiers in the Second World War, for instance, lent it all sorts of new and exciting uses). I suspect this is basically because ohshits "cunt" refers to--gasp!--a woman's naughty parts, and since women are apparently made of spun sugar and sunshine and other impossibly frail things we can't possibly risk getting into the habit and accidentally giving some poor lady a fit of the vapors some day--even as we throw the f-word around like there's a worldwide fucking surplus. Which is why I think we all ought to use it more. =B

Well, that and "fuck" is a verb. Or has a verb form, at any rate. But I'm still in favor of using "cunt" more often. Can't get creative with a word if you don't use it.

Altho' I'm with you on using "twat" more often, too. They're both potentially very useful expletives.

Osterbaum 05-19-2008 06:29 PM

Forget about cunt. I like wang. Both as a word and as something else!

Seriosly, it is a cool word, one we need to use more often.

Do we really need to find a system to profile each other based on how often we post? Just another way to get labelled! Think about it. Soon we'll be hanging out rep and show our post counts on our profiles to show all who is cool and who is not! Think of what it will lead to!

POS Industries 05-19-2008 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meister
On that note I saw a few seconds of a WWE show the other day and there's apparently a guy now named Jimmy Wang Yang, and I thought well, someone signed a contract without double-checking.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...BillyGunn5.jpg

There are worse gimmicks.

Mirai Gen 05-19-2008 08:43 PM

Angelfire is gimmicky?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.