"Another stupid question" - Was it zoinked? (1 Viewer)

[Joseph Howard]

"Another stupid question" Thread I started yesterday is missing.

I'm guessing it caused a problem. Because it appears to
have been "zoinked, zapped, removed." :frowning:

Admins, did someone get carried away with its idea?
If so, sorry. :b

Ah well, I still have that "other thread."

Dr. Joe

 

[Jack Briggs]

Dr. Howard:

Sir, you need to read your private messages. I sent two to you last night, the first one praising your newest effort. The second one was an apology: Read it and you'll see what I mean.

In that second PM, I encouraged you to start a new experiment based on the same premise (most views without any responses), since I had inadvertently ruined your first experiment.

So, read those PMs for the full story, and then proceed with the new experiment. Again, my apologies.

This is for science.

JB

 

[BrianW]

I was going to pop in here and bump the view count, but then I thought this might be part of the test, so I decided to respond, but then I wondered if this thread might be the control sample and that I might be contaminating it, so I decided not to post anything, but then it occurred to me that the view count will always be equal to or greater than the post count, so I thought maybe I should post something, but nothing meaningful to say came to mind, so I decided not to post anything, but then I thought I could comment on the experiment itself, but then that might lead to a sort of cyclical data contamination in which posts discussing the threads in which they are posted would need to be manually searched for and discarded, making the experiment more difficult to conduct and calling the validity of the data, and therefore the conclusions, into question, but then it suddenly occurred to me that I have no idea what this experiment is about and that I should probably mind my own business, but the fact that I have already incremented the view count makes me a part of the collected data, and it’s too late to do anything about that, so I might as well post anyway, but in the end, I decided that I wouldn’t post a response because explaining anything I posted here would take too long anyway.

 

[Joseph Howard]

WOW!! I have private messages! Gee I feel so special.
It has been nearly 6 years and I am just now getting my first "private message."

I stopped looking because I was always disappointed with the "no private messages"....

I'm sooo excited.

Dr. Joe

 

[JasenP]

I'm part of the placebo group, aren't I?


I don't get it.

 

[Andrew Chong]

Hilarious, BrianW. You've got a nice sense of humour.

 

[Joseph Howard]

BrianW.

I agree, however I take exception with your theorems with regards to certain opposite ideas that can cause the malfunction of certain pathways to areas unknown in the postulates that regard the aftereffect irrelavent in terms of differing postions when connected with the frames of reference that conclude with grounds for dismissal of the above said theory is absolutly proposterous. So in continuing such a violent upheveal in the possibilities of difracting theories of usages that tamper with the equivalencies of resutant forces in these experiments is completely untrustworthy in areas of ideal and calibrated error. Also, upon the inactment of such an event, in normal standards, it would fall into the range of corrolary statistical productions of branching inaccurate data. Which in effect causes some certian probability influences on the impact of the compiled research. Now to reconcile this difference with predicted values in inumerable and collaberated works of this type, one must first take into account the incoming transformations with the relativistic abilities of certian Kangaroos working in Bolivia as firehydrants.

In this postion of probable causations, including such areas as responding responsible adjudications, the conflict arises upon the criteria of certain denominators of weighing or assessing different values or ideals
in relation to one another. Pugnicationism is a common sense attempt to provide such an inevitable ramificational circumlinear relationship of this independent declaration in principle terms. The justification coincidently may or may not revolve around an explitive adduce, as the ground of the right, some description or descriptive haracteristic is purely informational in its claimed appetitive-reciprical consistency principles. The generality of this purposiveness and its corresponding translational hierarchy is an illocutionary equivocational endorsement and unqualified contradiction of such conclusionary terms. The monumental proposition proposed in this simplistic quantificationary action constenerates accepted norms and cohesiveness inclusions.

It is therfore a purely arbitrary perspective synthesis of fascinating illuminational assumptions that proports to deserve traditional basis of voluntary associations. The negative requirement of the purposeful fulfillment comprises coercing inclinations shifting relational phenomena into its purest forms of correlative obligations.

DOH!

 

[Jack Briggs]

But, Dr. Howard, are you going to proceed with the new experiment to replace the one I ruined? As I said in my first PM to you, it was an excellent idea. And in my effort to maintain the experiment's viability, I mistakenly destroyed (i.e., deleted) it.

I want to see how far such an experiment can go.

 

[BrianW]

Dr. Howard,

Don't fret. As long as your contributory view count equals your post count, you can consider yourself "cancelled out," so to speak, though your involvement will then become a special case since you won't know the specific contributions of other participants. In any case, I know exactly what you mean. No, wait... Did you say "inevitable ramificational circumlinear relationship" when you meant to say "inevitable ramificational circumspectual relationship"? Because if you actually meant to say the latter, then all I have to say is:

Thread Killer, Indeed!


(As if I should talk. Did you see what I did to Julie'sNoggin Swappin' thread? It's as if I drove it headlong over a cliff. )

[Edited to provide link to the thread I killed and to credit Julie for its creation. Get it? I said headlong. Head? Get it? You see, it's funny because the thread's about... Oh, never mind.]

 

[Max Leung]

Jack, I think you just demonstrated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Further empirical proof that quantum physics is utterly insane.

You guys sound like a bunch of postmodern intellectual bull-poopers! Funny.

 

[Joseph Howard]

Jack....

The experiment is alive a well.

It is currently going "0" for "482."

Now, don't touch that wet paint. Don't do it!!!

Dr. Joe

 

[BrianW]

Max, whom are you calling intellectual? Not me, I hope!

No, wait...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Brian, no one is calling anybody an "intellectual" here. Be calm. I am.

 

[Max Leung]

I was being fatuous uh I mean fortuitous, or is it fascistious? Them darn big words confound me.

Did I just hear Jack calling himself a calm intellectual? Kudos!