Forum for Anal-Retentive restorers?

[utahdog2003]

SF, You're not making a Frumpy Rumpfy joke are you? :shock:

edit to say I know he was, but I just wanted to see the two words next to one another.

 

[hollister]

I forgot about that one. IIRC, the guy took it exactly as intended. In stride. Though there is/was truth to my comment...but his reaction is whats key.

Typically, public forums have rules against attacking other member...which many users have issues with. More often than not, newbies don't know how to deal with it. I can't refrain from making a comment myself. I'm an asshole.

A private forum with hand picked people who all know each other, this isn't an issue.

Note: the use of the word "you" below is intended as the collective "you"; not the singular. I use "u" to mean the singular "you"

Out of curiosity, u seem to have an awareness about your being a prickly fellow, yet u also say u can't help from making a comment? U don't mention the nature of these comments, yet one can assume that since u claim you're an a**hole, then you're aware that these comments tend to inspire anger/disappointment/etc. in the person that they were intended for. So my question is...if you REALLY CAN'T help yourself, then surely you must be missing several teeth and have black eyes on a regular basis from all the passersby you also insult on public streets. Surely you don't agree with every hair style or wardrobes that people select to go out in public. And I'm positive, you're not fond of every parked car you see on your way to work so surely you must hunt down the owners to tell them of your disapproval. And with your problem of being incapable of containing your derisive comments, then surely u must be beaten on regularly by all these insulted people you're passing in your daily life.

I don't really think that's the case (you could keep your comments to yourself but you choose not to.) Many folks here will post stuff like "I don't like it", etc. but when I read an assortment of your posts and several others on the other forum, I can't help but being left with the feeling that you seem to seriously enjoy ganging up to pick on folks, particularly these "newbies". You have an awesome level of knowledge and a fantastic collection of significant, vintage MTB history but you don't have my respect because I can't get past the mean spirited bullying that some of you guys seem to thrive on. :cry:


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/743066
Q. What is the definition of Frumpy to you? What makes one..."Frumpy?"
A. lack of style, stuck in another time style-wise. one who walks w/o energy or good posture as if walking to the sound of slow drums?
I've also always been curious about the significance of your username

I didn't read it. I've been coughing up phlegm for like 2 hours.


update: I just skimmed it. My conclusion: Hoey said he thought that a better word list and a smarter program could get to ten times his 540-word palindrome, using only noun phrases with indefinite articles. I'm pretty sure that will never happen. The problem is a dirth of "a"s. According to Hoey's rules, every phrase must start with the letter "a". That means that either the rest of the word must be an exact reverse of another word (and we know there are 1100 of these) or the phrase must have another "a" in it somewhere, and it must be matched by two or more other phrases. Phrases such as "a man", "a plan" and "a canal" work well because they contain multiple "a"s. Now consider a phrase such as "a biologist". If that appears in the palindrome, then somewhere else the letters "tsigoloib" must appear. But note that those letters must all appear in one word/phrase, because there is no "a", and we only get word boundries at "a"s. And of course, there is no single word that contain those letters. In general, take a word (such as "an asparagus" or "a biologist"), split it into components around the "a"s (yielding ["n", "sp", "r", "gus"] and ["biologist"]). Collect the set of all such segments, from all the phrases in the dictionary. Now go back through the dictionary, and for each word, see if the reverse of each of its components is in this set. So "an asparagus" is good, because its reversed components all appear in the set: "n" appears in many places (including "an asparagus" itself), "ps" appears as a component in "a psalm", "r" appears in many places (such as "a karat"), and "sug" appears in "a sugar". On the other hand, "a biologist" is no good, because the component "tsigoloib" does not appear.

so in conclusion, I gotta go make my lunch for tomorrow.

 

[Tallpaul]

Pete & Kev have, between them, hit the nail on the head. If you post an old bike that has no providence either in its heritage or personal significance, don't expect everyone to react with praise.

I honestly can't see how anyone can imagine that these sorts of bikes are of any interest. I see them chained to railings all over town, why would I register as a member of a such a niche forum to look at them too?

 

[utahdog2003]

update: I just skimmed it. My conclusion: Hoey said he thought that a better word list and a smarter program could get to ten times his 540-word palindrome, using only noun phrases with indefinite articles. I'm pretty sure that will never happen. The problem is a dirth of "a"s. According to Hoey's rules, ...

so in conclusion, I gotta go make my lunch for tomorrow.

If somebody dusts off that damn picture of the bunny with the pancake on its head and posts it up, I'm going to slit my wrists. :shock:

 

[hollister]

update: I just skimmed it. My conclusion: Hoey said he thought that a better word list and a smarter program could get to ten times his 540-word palindrome, using only noun phrases with indefinite articles. I'm pretty sure that will never happen. The problem is a dirth of "a"s. According to Hoey's rules, ...

so in conclusion, I gotta go make my lunch for tomorrow.

If somebody dusts off that damn picture of the bunny with the pancake on its head and posts it up, I'm going to slit my wrists. :shock:

Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Oolong is planning to tour the country promoting juvenile charlatanism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews! Perhaps before going on, I should describe Oolong to you. Oolong is unpleasant, gin-swilling, and manipulative. Furthermore, he yearns to calumniate helpless sewer rats.

There's a chance that Oolong will cause an increase in disease, animalism, crime, and vice one of these days. Well, that's extremely speculative but it is clear today that I've tried to explain to Oolong's presumptuous, sneaky collaborators that Oolong's antics are colored by a sycophantic adoration of fetishism. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that like a verbal magician, Oolong knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. Oolong has endorsed the idea of petulant, uncongenial frotteurism in a number of specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his cult followers' decision to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. He doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.

If Oolong makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to get people to sign a petition to limit Oolong's ability to cause trouble. He should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. Oolong's inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he values our perspectives, but, as you know, he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, Oolong gave us gnosticism, racialism, and demagogism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since it seems clear that froward nobodies all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Oolong's subliminal psywar campaigns. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Oolong says it is within his legal right to advocate fatalistic acceptance of a conceited, disloyal new world order. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Oolong maintains that either his musings are not worth getting outraged about or that violence and prejudice are funny. Oolong denies any other possibility. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Oolong is a standard-bearer for the unbearable.

 

[utahdog2003]

Must...fight...the...rage!

 

[SF Klein]

Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Oolong is a standard-bearer for the unbearable.

Interesting method to write up your example metaphorically but Oolong must also recognize that while he is free to "make fun of me or insult me", we the people are also free to respond in kind, no? Oolong may choose to criticize newbies and their bikes; some of us may choose to criticize his criticism. (<--note this last sentence only had 3 a's in it)

(I'm still a bit perplexed on the palindrome write up but I'll give it another read when I have more caffeine in me)

 

[ededwards]

Ok, this is really going nowhere so time to move on....