Out of the Closet!
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Would it be Mister AGW
absolutely! Perfect casting
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Now, have to just figure somebody out for Red Stateler...Haven't seen too much of him lately :suss: Speaking of Danny DeVito, have you ever seen Drowning Mona[^]? At first I thought it would be weird, but it is funny dark comedy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Given your replies to the OP, I think it was pretty clear you took the bait. It's also pretty clear that you lack the grace or maturity to admit you were had.
Rob Graham wrote:
It's also pretty clear that you lack the grace or maturity to admit you were had.
I think it's amazing how much of his ego is invested in his rather pathetic attempts to appear always in the know in this forum (of all places!) One gets the impression that his psyche is made of porcelain - the slightest bump and it shatters into a thousand pieces.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Now, have to just figure somebody out for Red Stateler...Haven't seen too much of him lately :suss: Speaking of Danny DeVito, have you ever seen Drowning Mona[^]? At first I thought it would be weird, but it is funny dark comedy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Warwick Davis can do a cameo as Adnan. . .
Paul Conrad wrote:
have you ever seen Drowning Mona
Nope, but that's a helluva cast - almost as good as the one for "Soapbox - the Movie!"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
that's a helluva cast
It was a good one, and I strongly recommend renting ( buying is advised ) it. There are countless good one-liners that could be used around here :laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Warwick Davis can do a cameo as Adnan. . .
Paul Conrad wrote:
have you ever seen Drowning Mona
Nope, but that's a helluva cast - almost as good as the one for "Soapbox - the Movie!"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Warwick Davis can do a cameo as Adnan. . .
Definite yes, maybe Verne Troyer* if Mr. Davis doesn't take the offer. Seth Green* would probably do okay for Kyle.... * add some of the Austin Powers: Gold Member cast to the mix
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Don't you ever get tired of doing the crap that gets you banned? Are you dead set to prove you are a despicable idiot unworthy of association with any others here?
Rob Graham wrote:
dead set to prove you are a despicable idiot unworthy of association
Not that hard to prove by looking at his attitude around here.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Ilíon wrote:
you may well be the most dishonest.
What makes you say that?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
Paul Conrad wrote:
Ilíon: [Oakman] may well be the most dishonest. Paul Conrad: What makes you say that?
:suss: Have you paid no attention whatsoever to his constant behavior? Have you paid no attention to his constant misrepresentations of others (and not only of me)? Have you never noticed that so much of what he posts is intended only to "casue trouble" (that's the specific words he used recently in making an accusation about some newcomer) -- even as he prematurely or even falsely accuses others of this some character flaw? Have you *really* never noticed that when it suits him, he will employ blatant illogic and outright irrationality -- even as accuses other of this flaw? (Which is to say, he behaves exactly as "the community" as forever falsely accusing me of behaving.) Have you never noticed that he will assert (one cannot honestly call what he does argumentation) "A" if his target is one person (say, Stan, or me), and that he will assert "not-A" if his target is someone else (say, you)? And that sometimes he does this within a single thread? Do you *really* not understand that switching to illogic and/or irrationality to make one's "argument" is the very essence of dishonesty? Do you really not understand that the *refusal* to think and "argue" rationally and logically is the most dishonest of all behaviors, is the worst of all lies? Such refusal is not merely lying about an individual fact, it is lying about the very nature of truth and of reality. There are three (and *only* three) general categories of explanation for why someone does not correctly understand something: 1) Inability to understand the thing 2) Failure to understand some prior thing or things 3) Disinclination to understand the thing Now, of course, any *specific* explanation may involve a complex interplay of these possibilities. But, when one separates out the various threads, when one chases each component down to its core or root-cause, it will always fall into one of these three general categories. The reader may notice that 2) is almost restatement of the initial fact-to-be-explained; it is recursive: this is why there are no other, and can be no other, than these three general categories. Option 1) almost never applies, though it is often used as the easy way out or the easy explanation. But, in truth, there are very few people in this world who simply cannot understand some thing -- no matter wha
-
Given your replies to the OP, I think it was pretty clear you took the bait. It's also pretty clear that you lack the grace or maturity to admit you were had.
Rob Graham wrote:
Given your replies to the OP, I think it was pretty clear you took the bait. It's also pretty clear that you lack the grace or maturity to admit you were had.
What's pretty clear is that you are intensely stupid ... or inherently dishonest.
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Yep, without the Soapbox, I'd have to get my entertainment from t.v. or movies...
If someone wrote Ilion as a character in the movies, he'd have to be played by Pee Wee Herman. You and I, on the other hand would be played by Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Stan would be portrayed by Foghorn Leghorn and Heize would be portrayed by Andy Dick.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
If someone wrote Ilion as a character in the movies, he'd have to be played by Pee Wee Herman.
I'm thinking David Hyde Pierce, the guy that played Niles on "Frasier", would be better for Ilion. He'd have to girl up a bit, but I think he could pull it off.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Given your replies to the OP, I think it was pretty clear you took the bait. It's also pretty clear that you lack the grace or maturity to admit you were had.
What's pretty clear is that you are intensely stupid ... or inherently dishonest.
Ilíon wrote:
What's pretty clear is that you are intensely stupid ... or inherently dishonest.
That really is all you say, isn't it? Over and over again, you call people making simple straightforward and extremely accurate statements, liars and stupid - because you just can't come up with anything else. You think you have made a post when you stick a link up to someone who has something to say; and you think you have provided a rebuttal by hurling two pathetic little insults at whoever has expressed their disdain most recently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Ilíon: [Oakman] may well be the most dishonest. Paul Conrad: What makes you say that?
:suss: Have you paid no attention whatsoever to his constant behavior? Have you paid no attention to his constant misrepresentations of others (and not only of me)? Have you never noticed that so much of what he posts is intended only to "casue trouble" (that's the specific words he used recently in making an accusation about some newcomer) -- even as he prematurely or even falsely accuses others of this some character flaw? Have you *really* never noticed that when it suits him, he will employ blatant illogic and outright irrationality -- even as accuses other of this flaw? (Which is to say, he behaves exactly as "the community" as forever falsely accusing me of behaving.) Have you never noticed that he will assert (one cannot honestly call what he does argumentation) "A" if his target is one person (say, Stan, or me), and that he will assert "not-A" if his target is someone else (say, you)? And that sometimes he does this within a single thread? Do you *really* not understand that switching to illogic and/or irrationality to make one's "argument" is the very essence of dishonesty? Do you really not understand that the *refusal* to think and "argue" rationally and logically is the most dishonest of all behaviors, is the worst of all lies? Such refusal is not merely lying about an individual fact, it is lying about the very nature of truth and of reality. There are three (and *only* three) general categories of explanation for why someone does not correctly understand something: 1) Inability to understand the thing 2) Failure to understand some prior thing or things 3) Disinclination to understand the thing Now, of course, any *specific* explanation may involve a complex interplay of these possibilities. But, when one separates out the various threads, when one chases each component down to its core or root-cause, it will always fall into one of these three general categories. The reader may notice that 2) is almost restatement of the initial fact-to-be-explained; it is recursive: this is why there are no other, and can be no other, than these three general categories. Option 1) almost never applies, though it is often used as the easy way out or the easy explanation. But, in truth, there are very few people in this world who simply cannot understand some thing -- no matter wha
Ilíon wrote:
this SandBox really[^] "just a place to vent a litle steam and maybe, have some fun with unlike minded people" ... which is to say, *everything* here is a just a joke? Or is there a double-standard, one for "the community" and a quite different one (or multiples) for everyone else
It's a double standard. One for the white hats like me; another for the bottom-scrapings like you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Warwick Davis can do a cameo as Adnan. . .
Definite yes, maybe Verne Troyer* if Mr. Davis doesn't take the offer. Seth Green* would probably do okay for Kyle.... * add some of the Austin Powers: Gold Member cast to the mix
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
Paul Conrad wrote:
Seth Green* would probably do okay for Kyle.... * add some of the Austin Powers: Gold Member cast to the mix
I blush to admit it, but I still remember him as the cool werewolf on Buffy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
If someone wrote Ilion as a character in the movies, he'd have to be played by Pee Wee Herman.
I'm thinking David Hyde Pierce, the guy that played Niles on "Frasier", would be better for Ilion. He'd have to girl up a bit, but I think he could pull it off.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm thinking David Hyde Pierce, the guy that played Niles on "Frasier", would be better for Ilion. He'd have to girl up a bit, but I think he could pull it off.
I hate to waste that much talent on a opera buffo character like Ilion, but you could be right. Pierce could flaunt all of Ilion's failings and make them comic on a level Pee Wee isn't able to reach
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Don't you ever get tired of doing the crap that gets you banned? Are you dead set to prove you are a despicable idiot unworthy of association with any others here?
Rob Graham wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of doing the crap that gets you banned? Are you dead set to prove you are a despicable idiot unworthy of association with any others here?
Why, exactly, is CSS' "joke" about "digtial man" so despicable, while your "jokes" about me are on the money? Really, now! This "family" double-standard just won't hold up in the real world.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What's pretty clear is that you are intensely stupid ... or inherently dishonest.
That really is all you say, isn't it? Over and over again, you call people making simple straightforward and extremely accurate statements, liars and stupid - because you just can't come up with anything else. You think you have made a post when you stick a link up to someone who has something to say; and you think you have provided a rebuttal by hurling two pathetic little insults at whoever has expressed their disdain most recently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That really is all you say, isn't it?
The stupidity ... or lies ... you people like to repeat becomes The TrVth upon repetition, and I somehow have an obligation to call it something than what it is. You're such a fool (on top of being a "troll")!
-
Ilíon wrote:
this SandBox really[^] "just a place to vent a litle steam and maybe, have some fun with unlike minded people" ... which is to say, *everything* here is a just a joke? Or is there a double-standard, one for "the community" and a quite different one (or multiples) for everyone else
It's a double standard. One for the white hats like me; another for the bottom-scrapings like you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Ilíon: [Oakman] may well be the most dishonest. Paul Conrad: What makes you say that?
:suss: Have you paid no attention whatsoever to his constant behavior? Have you paid no attention to his constant misrepresentations of others (and not only of me)? Have you never noticed that so much of what he posts is intended only to "casue trouble" (that's the specific words he used recently in making an accusation about some newcomer) -- even as he prematurely or even falsely accuses others of this some character flaw? Have you *really* never noticed that when it suits him, he will employ blatant illogic and outright irrationality -- even as accuses other of this flaw? (Which is to say, he behaves exactly as "the community" as forever falsely accusing me of behaving.) Have you never noticed that he will assert (one cannot honestly call what he does argumentation) "A" if his target is one person (say, Stan, or me), and that he will assert "not-A" if his target is someone else (say, you)? And that sometimes he does this within a single thread? Do you *really* not understand that switching to illogic and/or irrationality to make one's "argument" is the very essence of dishonesty? Do you really not understand that the *refusal* to think and "argue" rationally and logically is the most dishonest of all behaviors, is the worst of all lies? Such refusal is not merely lying about an individual fact, it is lying about the very nature of truth and of reality. There are three (and *only* three) general categories of explanation for why someone does not correctly understand something: 1) Inability to understand the thing 2) Failure to understand some prior thing or things 3) Disinclination to understand the thing Now, of course, any *specific* explanation may involve a complex interplay of these possibilities. But, when one separates out the various threads, when one chases each component down to its core or root-cause, it will always fall into one of these three general categories. The reader may notice that 2) is almost restatement of the initial fact-to-be-explained; it is recursive: this is why there are no other, and can be no other, than these three general categories. Option 1) almost never applies, though it is often used as the easy way out or the easy explanation. But, in truth, there are very few people in this world who simply cannot understand some thing -- no matter wha
I would have like a quick concise post :zzz:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
I would have like a quick concise post :zzz:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm thinking David Hyde Pierce, the guy that played Niles on "Frasier", would be better for Ilion. He'd have to girl up a bit, but I think he could pull it off.
I hate to waste that much talent on a opera buffo character like Ilion, but you could be right. Pierce could flaunt all of Ilion's failings and make them comic on a level Pee Wee isn't able to reach
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I hate to waste that much talent on a opera buffo character like Ilion, but you could be right. Pierce could flaunt all of Ilion's failings and make them comic on a level Pee Wee isn't able to reach
Yeah. If only Larry Craig could act. When I see the tape of him calling Clinton a "nasty, bad, naughty boy", I think he and Ilion must be related in some way.