Page 282 of 2682

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:27 pm UTC
by Elmach
descor wrote:
Elmach wrote:
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval." is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.


What about:
Bill, where John had had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had the teacher's approval

Alas, "Bill, where John had had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had the teacher's approval" is not grammatically correct, despite it using nine "had"'s, because it lacks a period.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:28 pm UTC
by KarMann
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.

My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?


"I like that ball's color." is correct (assuming you like the color.)

"Door lock" and "door's lock"; maybe that one depends on context. "The door lock is broken.", "That door's lock is broken." Aha! The device (perhaps on the table) is a "door lock", installed in the door, it's the lock of the door, hence "door's lock".

Someone agree with me, please. Or not.

English (ab)uses appositives a lot, where other languages would use possessives or other relationships. "Door lock" is such a case.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:30 pm UTC
by AionArap
Elmach wrote:
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval." is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.


The 11 "had" version is correct for the same reason Bill got the teachers approval, where John didn't, at least according to the wiki example i linked.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:32 pm UTC
by descor
Elmach wrote:
descor wrote:
Elmach wrote:
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval." is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.


What about:
Bill, where John had had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had the teacher's approval

Alas, "Bill, where John had had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had the teacher's approval" is not grammatically correct, despite it using nine "had"'s, because it lacks a period.


Ouch! Harsh yet undeniably fair.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:35 pm UTC
by udscbt
descor wrote:
udscbt wrote:
lmjb1964 wrote:Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today. I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.
PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


So ... my first post after being a lurker for ages was in the Time thread back on page 251. Does that make me eligible?

Yes, you are!
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with the power granted me by Time, nominate you, descor, Cardinal of the Timewaiters. You will need another Cardinal to ratify you. After that, you can ask Arch-Cardinal buffygirl to make you a hat.
And now, after adding the new nominated Cardinal to the Holy Scriptures, I will coma. The blessing of Time be upon y'all.

EDIT: before going I should note to descor: you used the heretic word "newpix" in your first post, don't do that ever again

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:37 pm UTC
by Elmach
AionArap wrote:
Elmach wrote:
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval." is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.


The 11 "had" version is correct for the same reason Bill got the teachers approval, where John didn't, at least according to the wiki example i linked.

While the version with eleven "had"'s is grammatically correct, it is not a solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle because veryslightlygeeky's puzzle uses nine "had"'s, and thus, is a different puzzle from the puzzle with nine "had"'s. While histrion's solution would be a solution to the eleven "had"'s puzzle, and is the puzzle from the wiki, veryslightlygeeky's puzzle is the nine "had"'s puzzle, which is not the puzzle from the wiki, but a similar, yet different, puzzle.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:42 pm UTC
by KarMann
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
imagineddragon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
imagineddragon wrote:For the first time in a long time I forgot to check for the new comic. Randall is now competing with himself for my attention.

Oh! That's right! It's Monday, so a new comic's up!

ikr. The upside is I finally get my wish of an xkcd fix 24.4286 times everyday.

FIFY

FTFY

Why .4286?

Sorry, I forgot to explain this last night after checking that no one else had explained it. 24 new Time NewPices per day, plus 3/7 other strips per day, on average. 171 total per week, 171/7 is 24.4286, rounded off. (I didn't feel like posting an infinitely long post here.)

Added: Now that I think about it, I could see an argument for just 24, since nominally the other strips appear at the same time as one of the Time NewPices. (Not Monday's, though, which was rather late.) It might be more accurately stated that you get your wish of 24.428571... xkcd fixes per day.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:47 pm UTC
by descor
udscbt wrote:
descor wrote:
udscbt wrote:
lmjb1964 wrote:Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today. I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.
PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


So ... my first post after being a lurker for ages was in the Time thread back on page 251. Does that make me eligible?

Yes, you are!
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with the power granted me by Time, nominate you, descor, Cardinal of the Timewaiters. You will need another Cardinal to ratify you. After that, you can ask Arch-Cardinal buffygirl to make you a hat.
And now, after adding the new nominated Cardinal to the Holy Scriptures, I will coma. The blessing of Time be upon y'all.

EDIT: before going I should note to descor: you used the heretic word "newpix" in your first post, don't do that ever again


I'm sorry! I was young and foolish and caught up in the rush of making my first post. I have repented and promise to uphold the ways of the Timewaiters for all of Time.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:52 pm UTC
by veryslightlygeeky
Well, now the question of 'had's is happily settled, I am wondering whose church should I join? I am up for bribes.

I cheerfully confess that I did sign up because of this nonsensical and beautifully silly thread. And I think I meant to write eleven 'had's. Ah well.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:01 pm UTC
by SBN
KarMann wrote:
tman2nd wrote:Why .4286?

Sorry, I forgot to explain this last night after checking that no one else had explained it. 24 new Time NewPices per day, plus 3/7 other strips per day, on average. 171 total per week, 171/7 is 24.4286, rounded off. (I didn't feel like posting an infinitely long post here.)

Added: Now that I think about it, I could see an argument for just 24, since nominally the other strips appear at the same time as one of the Time NewPices. (Not Monday's, though, which was rather late.) It might be more accurately stated that you get your wish of 24.428571... xkcd fixes per day.


What about what-if?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
by KarMann
Image
Don't taste it, Megan!

Also, pointing out that the next frame will be the magic 500, I believe, that the true connoisseurs require.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:10 pm UTC
by RobIrr
Spoiler:
Image
Will she taste it too?

Totally Ninja'd.
Is it just me or is the forum really slow all of a sudden?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:14 pm UTC
by Latent22
RobIrr wrote:Totally Ninja'd.
Is it just me or is the forum really slow all of a sudden?


yeah it is almost as slow as the time comic itself right now...

I got Ninja'd as well :(

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:20 pm UTC
by KarMann
RobIrr wrote:Is it just me or is the forum really slow all of a sudden?

Well, I've been wondering the exact same thing, so I suppose it's neither just you, nor just I.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:31 pm UTC
by HAL9000
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Well, now the question of 'had's is happily settled, I am wondering whose church should I join? I am up for bribes.

I cheerfully confess that I did sign up because of this nonsensical and beautifully silly thread. And I think I meant to write eleven 'had's. Ah well.

If you prove yourself worthy, you can join the ranks of the Knight Watchers.
The forum is indeed slow.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:03 pm UTC
by SBN
Image

I imagine I'll get ninja'd, but I'll try anyway.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:27 pm UTC
by ChronosDragon
Megan is washing her hands in the water. I hereby propose (despite not being a member of any of the major sects) that ritual hand-washing become a tradition.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:28 pm UTC
by KarMann
SBN wrote:I imagine I'll get ninja'd, but I'll try anyway.

I suspect that the slowness is putting people off a bit. I wonder if it's a DDoS, or what. It doesn't seem to be quite as bad as it was around an hour ago, though.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:46 pm UTC
by edo
Smithers wrote:"We are the knights who say ...... wait for it ...... dery." Hang on, I got that wrong somewhere.


The Knights of Ledgen... wait for it... d.

lmjb1964 wrote:
I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today.


D'oh!

I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.


What other choice do I have? What choice do any of us have but to wait?


You can choose who to wait with; you can become a member of the Western Paradox Church, as I did. The Patriarch may still be trebucheting (a lot like cannonizing) Revered Apostates

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:53 pm UTC
by azule
Flado wrote:
azule wrote:When did we get a Western Paradox Church? I want to be an unmember too.

I declared myself Patriarch when no-one was looking, as it was my first post and thus stuck in moderation for a page or two. After that, I had precedent on my side :-) A cunning trick, you see?
Well you aren't partially unwelcome. We should have a Messiah by now. Or two of them. Must catch up.

I like it. Declaration via an unposted Post. lol.

So...I may or may not be in. Good to un/know. :mrgreen:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:09 am UTC
by SBN
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:16 am UTC
by kryton
Smithers wrote:
nickulo wrote:Been checking in here periodically for almost 500 newpics. Had to chime in with:

1. You people are insane.
2. May I suggest "The Knights Who Say..........." (and then if someone asks "Say what?" You just say "Wait for it.")

"We are the knights who say ...... wait for it ...... dery." Hang on, I got that wrong somewhere.
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?


"I like that ball's color." is correct (assuming you like the color.)

"Door lock" and "door's lock"; maybe that one depends on context. "The door lock is broken.", "That door's lock is broken." Aha! The device (perhaps on the table) is a "door lock", installed in the door, it's the lock of the door, hence "door's lock".

Someone agree with me, please. Or not.

Adding either apostrophe or apostrophe-s is correct if the s is from a proper noun but not if it comes from pluralisation. Suppose your dogs, Peaches and James, own a ball each. Then you may speak of "Peaches' ball's colour", "Peaches's ball's colour" or "the dogs' balls' colours", but not "the dogs's balls's colours".


I think we crossed the Ryle 34 line talking about canine and clergy sacks.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:20 am UTC
by kryton
udscbt wrote:
descor wrote:
udscbt wrote:
lmjb1964 wrote:Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today. I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.
PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


So ... my first post after being a lurker for ages was in the Time thread back on page 251. Does that make me eligible?

Yes, you are!
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with the power granted me by Time, nominate you, descor, Cardinal of the Timewaiters. You will need another Cardinal to ratify you. After that, you can ask Arch-Cardinal buffygirl to make you a hat.
And now, after adding the new nominated Cardinal to the Holy Scriptures, I will coma. The blessing of Time be upon y'all.

EDIT: before going I should note to descor: you used the heretic word "newpix" in your first post, don't do that ever again


Least you instead become a cardinal of the Eastern Unorthodox Timewaiters.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:46 am UTC
by partingLance
azule wrote:
Flado wrote:
azule wrote:When did we get a Western Paradox Church? I want to be an unmember too.

I declared myself Patriarch when no-one was looking, as it was my first post and thus stuck in moderation for a page or two. After that, I had precedent on my side :-) A cunning trick, you see?
Well you aren't partially unwelcome. We should have a Messiah by now. Or two of them. Must catch up.

I like it. Declaration via an unposted Post. lol.

So...I may or may not be in. Good to un/know. :mrgreen:


I decided this was the Church for me when they ignored my application. Disgusted, I not only withdrew it, but went back and hacked the board to delete the post in which the foundation of the Church was proclaimed to the world. As the Church thus never came into existence, I was not, in the event, motivated to try to suppress it, and the rest you know.

Naturally the Church then extended me an offer of membership, an offer I spurned indignantly before joining enthusiastically, and taking up the sincere worship of the One True Comic, the existence of which I believe to be an illusion. The purpose of this illusion is clear, obvious, and by definition unknowable.

EDIT to correct a tpyo. A true pendant never unintentionally mispleds.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:00 am UTC
by kryton
Over 400 oldpix ago, there was more than 1.3 Megan-Length of shore between the right most tower and the waterline, now there is less than 0.4 Megan-Length to the waterline.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:06 am UTC
by SBN
Image
Is she castling again?

Edit: Corrected URL. (I'm blaming the forum slowness.) I have to coma after the next Newpix, you'll have to carry on without me for awhile.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:10 am UTC
by Latent22
Looks like she is doing a wall to block off the rising water. It's going to have to be strong to hold back anything...

SBN: looks like you posted the wrong image... which you have now fixed :) Duplicate image removed

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:14 am UTC
by Eternal Density
Our chief weapon is waiting, and watching.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:26 am UTC
by KarMann
Eternal Density wrote:Our chief weapon is waiting, and watching.

That's two weapons.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:32 am UTC
by Latent22
I wonder what the viscosity of the rising (probably) liquid is. If it is a thick semen/coffee and not water then maybe she can hold it back with her sand castle wall she is building.

Image
And now she has finished and is off again

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:05 am UTC
by SBN
Edit: Ninja'd via pre-gong post editing.

I must coma. (Which generally means things will get more interesting, so you're welcome.)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:07 am UTC
by htom
Slowed almost to a halt.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:22 am UTC
by partingLance
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Well, now the question of 'had's is happily settled, I am wondering whose church should I join? I am up for bribes.

I cheerfully confess that I did sign up because of this nonsensical and beautifully silly thread. And I think I meant to write eleven 'had's. Ah well.


Welcome!

I'm new here myself, but -- with the greatest respect == I must comment that your use of the words "nonsensical" and "silly" may indicate that you're still in thrall to the Outside, which is the realm of what I believe the Buddhists* refer to as maya, or illusion.

But not to worry. In time, I'm sure, you'll join most of the rest of us in concluding that it's on the Outside where true nonsense and silliness are to be found.

EDIT: O dear. That should of was "In Time, I'm sure, you'll join most of the rest of us...". I must be tired today

*An Outsider religious group, aspects of whose theology nevertheless seem strangely to prefigure the OTC, particularly their emphasis on patience.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:23 am UTC
by elementropy
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Well, now the question of 'had's is happily settled, I am wondering whose church should I join? I am up for bribes.

I cheerfully confess that I did sign up because of this nonsensical and beautifully silly thread. And I think I meant to write eleven 'had's. Ah well.


I've been enjoying the linguistic bent of this topic...something seems particularly appropriate to the broad-sweeping yet minimalistic nature of 1190.

(My personal favourite from digressing through Wikipedia was Martin Gardiner's "Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?" )

Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:31 am UTC
by Elmach
elementropy wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Well, now the question of 'had's is happily settled, I am wondering whose church should I join? I am up for bribes.

I cheerfully confess that I did sign up because of this nonsensical and beautifully silly thread. And I think I meant to write eleven 'had's. Ah well.


I've been enjoying the linguistic bent of this topic...something seems particularly appropriate to the broad-sweeping yet minimalistic nature of 1190.

(My personal favourite from digressing through Wikipedia was Martin Gardiner's "Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?" )

Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?

I think the sentence ""Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?" would become much clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and after Fish and before the comma, and between between and Fish, and Fish and and, and and and and, and and and the comma, and the and two after and and after that and, and the And and the comma, and the other And and the following and, and the and two after and the comma, and the and two after the comma and the and after that, and the next And and the following comma, and the next and and the And, and before the and two after, and a bunch of other and's I am too lazy to talk about.

While I would like to give a suggestion for the name of the Knights of Time, I do not believe I am qualified to give a suggestion, because I call nüpiks nüpiks, not the CamelCased TimeFrames or the formerly Reckonëd newpix.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:32 am UTC
by jjjdavidson
elementropy wrote:Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?


Has no one yet suggested "Knights Temporal"?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:38 am UTC
by HAL9000
jjjdavidson wrote:
elementropy wrote:Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?


Has no one yet suggested "Knights Temporal"?

That's a good one.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:43 am UTC
by partingLance
HAL9000 wrote:
jjjdavidson wrote:
elementropy wrote:Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?


Has no one yet suggested "Knights Temporal"?

That's a good one.


I like that one too. So many possibilities, so little Time... or am I being heretical?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:50 am UTC
by elementropy
jjjdavidson wrote:
elementropy wrote:Also, from a few pages ago, why not "Knights Timeplar" ?


Has no one yet suggested "Knights Temporal"?


Do they fight the Time Bandits, or are both groups one-and-the-same, viewed through different cultural lenses?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:51 am UTC
by fhorn
Liebchen... sweetness heart, what watch?
Ten watch.
Such watch?