Give me a reason not tooooooh, can I have a go please DW???!!!!
If not can you start using it?
"OUCH" Not on me!!!!
Nige
Ok ,this isn't fair!
- Thread starter UC Smegpot
- Start date
There are 3 types of 'slap' :-
a) A physical slap, this is where you cuff the geezer, it fackin hurts, makes a lot of noise and humiliates the person on the receiving end ...and it does this because, if you slap someone, it is telling them, you don't really have to form a fist and punch them because you view them as inferior and thus a slap is adequate for them ...the irony is, a slap probably hurts you more than a punch and definitely a lot more to the ego, hence my addendum 'bitch' because as some people might view it, you would slap a female but not punch them and therefore you are being regraded as a female if you are administered a (bitch) slap.
I hasten to add at this point, I am not one of those who slaps women though I nealry slapped Bowen once but that doesn't really count ...but it's close I agree.
b) The second sort of slap is the virtual slap, this is where you get some penalty thrown against you for a forum indiscretion or for just being a dikk, you may cop a temporary ban, lose privileges or even a ban for life as cockdwarff received.
He committed the ultimate sin of daring to allow himself to believe he was my intellectual equal, I am intellectually bettered by a lot of people ...but unfortunately for nicky boy, life didn't include him in that most elite of lists.
c) This is my favourite slap, and it is the 'intellectual slap', this is where you try to be a smart ass on some forum somewhere and you get someone come in and make you look the size of a dwarf electron.
Now, whilst our ole mate Einstein came up with e=mc-squared to describe the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light, Newton was even more impressive when he stumbled upon the theory of gravitation which is best described by what's called the inverse square law.
I ain't gonna go into too much detail because I know Piper reads this stuff but suffice to say, the inverse square law is totally applicable to forums and it is appropriate in this way....
Newton's law of gravity describes a force that decreases with the square of the distance, i am suggesting, the intelligence some people who post on forums possess seems to be inversely proportional to the number of spelling mistakes (not typos) they make when posting.
To flesh this out, if we assume the average IQ is 100, we can also assume that people with average intelligence have worked out the existence of spell-check and thus will not have too many errors.
I must flag up another significant correlation here because it has been well documented that there is a link between lack of intelligence and laziness which might explain even partially stupid people shunning the use of a spell-check.
However, I digress...let's move on ....
So I am suggesting that IQ = 1/x-squared whereby x = number of spelling errors.
I agree that grammatical errors are also an IQ indicator here but for the purposes of this exercise, i will place them on the statistical back-burner.
So, if we assume 100 = average IQ then a post that has something like 5 spelling errors pans out as follows:-
IQ of a poster is = 100 multiplied by 1/x-squared (x= number of spelling erros) and so in this case it fleshes out to:-
100 x 1/5-squared = 100 x 0.04 which finally equals an intelligence quotient of 4.
Now this seems quite harsh bearing in mind a monkey could probably eeek out a double figured offering on the IQ scale but remember here, we are talking about people who had the opportunity to learn but thought their time was much better spent playing shoot'em ups or supporting Arsenal football team.
I rest my case, but.... in the process of formulating this relationship, we have also discovered another, just as profound truth .. and that is
...I probably have too much time on my hands
a) A physical slap, this is where you cuff the geezer, it fackin hurts, makes a lot of noise and humiliates the person on the receiving end ...and it does this because, if you slap someone, it is telling them, you don't really have to form a fist and punch them because you view them as inferior and thus a slap is adequate for them ...the irony is, a slap probably hurts you more than a punch and definitely a lot more to the ego, hence my addendum 'bitch' because as some people might view it, you would slap a female but not punch them and therefore you are being regraded as a female if you are administered a (bitch) slap.
I hasten to add at this point, I am not one of those who slaps women though I nealry slapped Bowen once but that doesn't really count ...but it's close I agree.
b) The second sort of slap is the virtual slap, this is where you get some penalty thrown against you for a forum indiscretion or for just being a dikk, you may cop a temporary ban, lose privileges or even a ban for life as cockdwarff received.
He committed the ultimate sin of daring to allow himself to believe he was my intellectual equal, I am intellectually bettered by a lot of people ...but unfortunately for nicky boy, life didn't include him in that most elite of lists.
c) This is my favourite slap, and it is the 'intellectual slap', this is where you try to be a smart ass on some forum somewhere and you get someone come in and make you look the size of a dwarf electron.
Now, whilst our ole mate Einstein came up with e=mc-squared to describe the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light, Newton was even more impressive when he stumbled upon the theory of gravitation which is best described by what's called the inverse square law.
I ain't gonna go into too much detail because I know Piper reads this stuff but suffice to say, the inverse square law is totally applicable to forums and it is appropriate in this way....
Newton's law of gravity describes a force that decreases with the square of the distance, i am suggesting, the intelligence some people who post on forums possess seems to be inversely proportional to the number of spelling mistakes (not typos) they make when posting.
To flesh this out, if we assume the average IQ is 100, we can also assume that people with average intelligence have worked out the existence of spell-check and thus will not have too many errors.
I must flag up another significant correlation here because it has been well documented that there is a link between lack of intelligence and laziness which might explain even partially stupid people shunning the use of a spell-check.
However, I digress...let's move on ....
So I am suggesting that IQ = 1/x-squared whereby x = number of spelling errors.
I agree that grammatical errors are also an IQ indicator here but for the purposes of this exercise, i will place them on the statistical back-burner.
So, if we assume 100 = average IQ then a post that has something like 5 spelling errors pans out as follows:-
IQ of a poster is = 100 multiplied by 1/x-squared (x= number of spelling erros) and so in this case it fleshes out to:-
100 x 1/5-squared = 100 x 0.04 which finally equals an intelligence quotient of 4.
Now this seems quite harsh bearing in mind a monkey could probably eeek out a double figured offering on the IQ scale but remember here, we are talking about people who had the opportunity to learn but thought their time was much better spent playing shoot'em ups or supporting Arsenal football team.
I rest my case, but.... in the process of formulating this relationship, we have also discovered another, just as profound truth .. and that is
...I probably have too much time on my hands
I'm afraid you have misunderstood some fundamental laws of physics Cook$ if you believe Ledz can be accommodated by any classical theories of gravitation.
This next quote will only be understood by some but nevertheless it is appropriate and I will be impressed by the first person who tells me what I am going on about
:-When trying to analyse the gravitational effects that can be attributed to Ledz, we also need to take into account Ledzy's 'Hawking radiation' energy ......
WTF am I going on about here ???
Now I suppose you are now going to try and debunk the NASA Ledz landings
with this theory Pete
Put it this way Kitchy boy, if Ledz does emit Hawking radiation, then trust me on this next point, there will be no NASA landing on him, if they did, their landing craft would turn into one long spaghetti strand ........ but why would it do that?
That my friend, is the question
Next .....
Damn my answer whilst not entirely correct but funnier would have been, due to the drastic cuts in NASA's budgets over the years and the fact that nobody cares about shuttle launchs (unless they go bang) anymore, would have been that NASA are making all of their space shuttles from flour and water a sort of death race meets masterchef, oh and while they're at it if they do take up my idea (for a measily 1% in tv royalties) may I be so bold as to suggest Jamie Oliver for part of the new space programme?