|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 21, 2011 22:32:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 27, 2011 6:34:58 GMT
Excuse me, Lester? Neutral sex?
"It" to describe animals is not a convention of the English language. It's an outdated notion indicative of the smug (also illusionary) superiority of our woefully confused species and its perceived evolutionary distance from "unsentient" life forms.
In short, Racism. Except against every non-human species on Earth.
The only time "it" is acceptable is when the sex of the animal truly IS unknown... And the sex of our alpaca is certainly known, because we Made the dang thing (and if you had ever seen his eyes, you would know with a cold, unhappy certainty that he is most definitely male. And that he wants you dead).
Don't get me started, Mister Croat.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 27, 2011 6:38:53 GMT
No but for serious, I'm about to restart work on Tellurian, now that I'm getting settled into uni. Phil's been doing some texturing too.
WOOOP WOOOP!
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 27, 2011 12:32:19 GMT
Excuse me, Lester? Neutral sex? "It" to describe animals is not a convention of the English language. It's an outdated notion indicative of the smug (also illusionary) superiority of our woefully confused species and its perceived evolutionary distance from "unsentient" life forms. In short, Racism. Except against every non-human species on Earth. The only time "it" is acceptable is when the sex of the animal truly IS unknown... And the sex of our alpaca is certainly known, because we Made the dang thing (and if you had ever seen his eyes, you would know with a cold, unhappy certainty that he is most definitely male. And that he wants you dead). Don't get me started, Mister Croat. Fucking evolutionary failures do not deserve to be referred to same as humans, the lords of Earth, and soon the entire solar system. I kill bugs simply because their stupidity disgusts me.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 27, 2011 14:42:30 GMT
Excuse me, Lester? Neutral sex? "It" to describe animals is not a convention of the English language. It's an outdated notion indicative of the smug (also illusionary) superiority of our woefully confused species and its perceived evolutionary distance from "unsentient" life forms. In short, Racism. Except against every non-human species on Earth. The only time "it" is acceptable is when the sex of the animal truly IS unknown... And the sex of our alpaca is certainly known, because we Made the dang thing (and if you had ever seen his eyes, you would know with a cold, unhappy certainty that he is most definitely male. And that he wants you dead). Don't get me started, Mister Croat. Fucking evolutionary failures do not deserve to be referred to same as humans, the lords of Earth, and soon the entire solar system. I kill bugs simply because their stupidity disgusts me. ...
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 28, 2011 7:16:00 GMT
Huh. That's the same reason I stomp Croats.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 28, 2011 7:30:19 GMT
Huh. That's the same reason I stomp Croats. >implying Croats can be stomped.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 28, 2011 10:55:00 GMT
Well, yeah... I mean, I'm pretty tall.
Obviously more testing is required, but we've had promising results insofar. Early tests put the average Croat's stompability at 75-80% (allowing a 2% margin of error), compared to only 22% for Australians.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 28, 2011 10:55:38 GMT
IS IT RACISM? OR IS IT SCIENCE!?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 28, 2011 14:41:26 GMT
Well, you could say Scots are stompable, but then you look at Dom.
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 28, 2011 23:11:22 GMT
No one will ever stomp Dom.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 29, 2011 3:05:52 GMT
Scots are only semistompable (in fact, they're right on the second stomp-radius, where things are less stompable than they are in Croatia but none the less, able to be stomped), but only if you can dodge the rain of cabers. This means their stomp coefficient is actually fairly low, as this value (hence known as Sc) is defined as a function of stompability divided by risk factor multiplied by level of difficulty (for instance, geographical factors such as isolation). Hence, we see: To clarify, stompability is expressed as a score between one and one hundred; the official SI unit for stompability is known as "Percents", i.e. an average of 80 is known as 80 "Percent" stompability, much the same as Force is expressed in Newtons. Level of difficulty is a score between one and ten, derived through a variety of factors, expressed in the SI units "bonus points". Risk factor is between one and one hundred, and is defined as the target's propensity for fucking you up, directly or indirectly. The SI units for risk factor are "Doms". For instance, if one was to apply the Waffleiron equation to, say, France (a region right at the centre of the European stompsphere), one would deduce that: Risk factor=0 Doms Level of difficulty=0 Bonus Points, and Stompability=100 Percent And thus, Sc=infinite, or undefined. This is known as the Squishy Paradox, or the "Why are my boots drenched in the blood of the French" Enigma.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on Mar 29, 2011 6:19:37 GMT
hmm, let's see:
s = 0 r = 100, because it's me, obviously d = near infinite, because everyone brags about it when they beat me
thus, my Sc is effectively 0
So, according to Scienceā¢, I am not stompable. Good Puglin.
Also:
That's gotta be the most retarded thing you've ever written. Bad Puglin. Bad, bad Puglin.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 29, 2011 7:10:10 GMT
Shut up, Mut. Lester gets to point that out. Now to demolish your science. Plainly from the stomp-distribution diagram, your stompability is in the 80's, possibly bordering 90. Let's say 87. Risk factor from stomping Mut... Weeeellllll... Hard to say, really. Working on the assumption that you aren't poisonous/don't have asper blood (acquire some, if you can), the risk factor of stomping you lies mainly in your poker ability. Imagine, if you will, scenario A. You walk into a room, with the intent of crushing the occupant 'neath your anvil shoes. Your motive is unimportant. Perhaps he has been solving rubix cubes, and this enrages you, because whilst you're an exemplary stomper, you lack any mental attributes, per se. You find the occupant (henceforthtobeknown as Bastardface, to shield the involved parties... By the way, your name is Hurpston. You're welcome) playing his piano. He does it well, and for this, he must be stomped. You raise your anvil shoes for a rousing double-stomp, but stop, feet inches from his nose, when he pivots on his seat to stare you in the eye. His poker face is unreadable. YOU PANIC. Your soul now belongs to Bastardface, due to science. Basically, Mut, your risk factor is inherently dependant on your ability to win at poker. From what I've heard, you mostly lose. But the consequences in the event that you Don't lose are quite extreme, so you get perhaps a 50 Dom rating. Degree of difficulty... Well, you live in a city, so geographically the only danger is that the city is on an island. Which is rather helpful. Furthermore, your personal surroundings consist mainly of spikes and piled skulls-- a serious slipping hazard to the inexperienced stomper and his (misguided) belief that shoes with flat metal soles are ideal for stomping missions. So about 6 Bonus Points there. This gives you a Stomp Coefficient of approximately 30*, which is actually quite appreciable. Try to improve your Sc by moving to less hospitable climes, or evolving spikes. *Subject to seasonal change.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 29, 2011 7:14:36 GMT
Quoting two very intelligent people here:
[14:34] <@axem> kill it with fire [14:34] <@herratohtori> but [14:34] <@herratohtori> fire causes radiation too [14:34] <@axem> no buts [14:34] <@herratohtori> and particle emissions [14:34] <@herratohtori> but I like buts [14:34] <@axem> im a scienctian [14:34] <@axem> i know this scistuff
|
|