1190: "Time"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:56 pm UTC

chem1190c wrote:
mojacardave wrote:
Exodies wrote:
mojacardave wrote:
mscha wrote:
mojacardave wrote:* Is there a way of posting prettier links in the forum? I'd like a BBCode equivalent of the HTML:

Code: Select all

<A HREF='http://...'>Link</A>

Code: Select all

[url=http://whatever]whatever[/url]

Thank you!

Is there a reason for the existence of BBCode rather than restricted HTML? It seems perverse.
I mean, we type:

Code: Select all

[url=http://whatever]whatever[/url]

and a big fuck-off computer somewhere turns it into:

Code: Select all

<A HREF='http://whatever'>whatever</A>


Is this a sensible use of electricity?


I suspect that (coding wise) it's easier to detect and remove all HTML tags, than to try to restrict the set. There are so many different ways of writing HTML that it must be easier to strip every tag out, and start again with a custom created limited set. Personally I prefer using something like CKEditor, and providing a rich text box for user input, but there's always somebody who'll try to exploit HTML vulnerabilities.


I think the simple answer is that html is waaaaay to easy to exploit. Things would fall apart pretty quick, since there's virtually no way to create an all encompassing filter to keep all the "bad" html out.

Many messages boards and forums used to allow virtually unrestricted use of html. One of the more entertaining exploits I've seen people use is:
Including a strategically placed unclosed html tag so that everything below your post vanishes, including the reply field.. sometimes followed up by spoofing the actual reply box/form with a custom written dialog that looks identical to the original. Then when someone tries to respond to the first post it does something .. different.. than they expect it to.

Of course the internet was a much simpler place back then.


Back then... Oh my. I remember web message boards where you typed in your nick and the message each time. The fun you could have taking on the role of all other participants. It was mind boggling. Must have been the early 1990s. (apply your own apostrophe if you feel it is necessary).
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

User avatar
StratPlayer
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby StratPlayer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:56 pm UTC

histrion wrote:
StratPlayer wrote:
histrion wrote:Her / Him / Quim (so as not to sound like the name "Kim")


Um, because a slang term for vagina is much better than sounding like a person's name? :wink:


Seriously? I have *never* heard that term before.

Obviously Quir would have problems of its own.

Qim or Qir. Preference?


Yeah, it's an old slang term for vagina, primarily British.

I think "Qim" seems to better match your other pronouns, but it's your language -- you can make it up however you'd like.
Former Forever member of the OTT, now moved on to other things sucked back in by the wowterful wonder of the thread...

OTT: Sit it vivet in aeternum!!!


(My Blog: The Creative Outlet of StratPlayer )

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:57 pm UTC

mojacardave wrote:
Exodies wrote:Bit of out-of-Time gossip: I ordered some photochromatic jazz sunglasses today. They become more translucent the more light there is. It's like a hipness amplifier.


It may be that I've missed the joke, but based on my understanding of what translucent means, 'more translucent' surely doesn't make sense.
More transparent or more opaque, sure, but translucent is somewhere in the middle...


Boring reality from an optical engineer: 'translucent' refers to a material which passes light but does not maintain phase or propagation angle, such as frosted glass. Translucent materials can have a range of absorption (or throughput) values, just as partially transparent materials can. The difference is that transparent materials do not foul up the wavefront. A lens can bend the wavefront (e.g. bring it to focus) but does not cause random scatter. So, yeah, translucent sunglasses would be a bad idea if you want to see where you're going.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

AionArap
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby AionArap » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:58 pm UTC

KarMann wrote:
AionArap wrote:
Exodies wrote:
AionArap wrote:
mscha wrote:
mojacardave wrote:* Is there a way of posting prettier links in the forum? I'd like a BBCode equivalent of the HTML:

Code: Select all

<A HREF='http://...'>Link</A>

Code: Select all

[url=http://whatever]whatever[/url]

See the FAQ, to use it in a sentence. :wink:

Alternatively, just hovering your cursor over the URL button in the post editor will tell you the same thing :wink:

Yes, but. Will it tell you long enough to read it? And I've tried hovering on my iPad; doesn't work.

What? Your iPad doesn't hover? Pffft.

Yep, sad but true, it's 2013, and I still don't have my hoverboard, or my flying car. :cry:


Disappointing, I know. They lied to us all.
StratPlayer wrote:Ah yes -- Vinnie Longdong. I believe he retired. Now he owns a strip club in New Jersey...

BA-DA-BING!!!

User avatar
treadman
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby treadman » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.

User avatar
histrion
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby histrion » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

AionArap wrote:
KarMann wrote:Yep, sad but true, it's 2013, and I still don't have my hoverboard, or my flying car. :cry:


Disappointing, I know. They lied to us all.


Speak for yourself. I've got the hoverboard prototype. I've just been told to hang onto it until 2016.
histrion, a.k.a. Sir Water of Ten, OKT, Archimandrite of Amicable Apostasy. Cheering on Blitzgirl, just because!

Time is a molecular acid.

User avatar
histrion
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby histrion » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:01 pm UTC

treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.
histrion, a.k.a. Sir Water of Ten, OKT, Archimandrite of Amicable Apostasy. Cheering on Blitzgirl, just because!

Time is a molecular acid.

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:02 pm UTC

Image
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:05 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
mojacardave wrote:
Exodies wrote:Bit of out-of-Time gossip: I ordered some photochromatic jazz sunglasses today. They become more translucent the more light there is. It's like a hipness amplifier.


It may be that I've missed the joke, but based on my understanding of what translucent means, 'more translucent' surely doesn't make sense.
More transparent or more opaque, sure, but translucent is somewhere in the middle...


Boring reality from an optical engineer: 'translucent' refers to a material which passes light but does not maintain phase or propagation angle, such as frosted glass. Translucent materials can have a range of absorption (or throughput) values, just as partially transparent materials can. The difference is that transparent materials do not foul up the wavefront. A lens can bend the wavefront (e.g. bring it to focus) but does not cause random scatter. So, yeah, translucent sunglasses would be a bad idea if you want to see where you're going.


Y'all go on as if words have meanings other than those the speaker wants them to have. Let me put it another way: the glasses let less light through the less light there is. Now do you see the futility of it? Good.
Don't they sound wonderful?
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

User avatar
treadman
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby treadman » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:10 pm UTC

histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
Spoiler:
Image


If the future consists of a 'rising tide' type of event, and the raised platforms are a means for M&C to keep dry, how do they know they are high enough?
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

User avatar
histrion
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby histrion » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:12 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


Fight? Who's fighting? I'm a huge proponent of "singular they," much to the chagrin of my former journalist friend. I'm only inventing new words for fun. Sorry if that gets under your skin. :?
histrion, a.k.a. Sir Water of Ten, OKT, Archimandrite of Amicable Apostasy. Cheering on Blitzgirl, just because!

Time is a molecular acid.

User avatar
StratPlayer
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby StratPlayer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:14 pm UTC

Exodies wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
mojacardave wrote:
Exodies wrote:Bit of out-of-Time gossip: I ordered some photochromatic jazz sunglasses today. They become more translucent the more light there is. It's like a hipness amplifier.


It may be that I've missed the joke, but based on my understanding of what translucent means, 'more translucent' surely doesn't make sense.
More transparent or more opaque, sure, but translucent is somewhere in the middle...


Boring reality from an optical engineer: 'translucent' refers to a material which passes light but does not maintain phase or propagation angle, such as frosted glass. Translucent materials can have a range of absorption (or throughput) values, just as partially transparent materials can. The difference is that transparent materials do not foul up the wavefront. A lens can bend the wavefront (e.g. bring it to focus) but does not cause random scatter. So, yeah, translucent sunglasses would be a bad idea if you want to see where you're going.


Y'all go on as if words have meanings other than those the speaker wants them to have. Let me put it another way: the glasses let less light through the less light there is. Now do you see the futility of it? Good.
Don't they sound wonderful?


They do! I'm sure they're just like the ones Miles Davis wore:

Image

EDIT to Add:

...or maybe more like from his 80's period:

Image
Last edited by StratPlayer on Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Former Forever member of the OTT, now moved on to other things sucked back in by the wowterful wonder of the thread...

OTT: Sit it vivet in aeternum!!!


(My Blog: The Creative Outlet of StratPlayer )

User avatar
iisjreg
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:12 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby iisjreg » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:14 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.



People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


Niblings :)
added: and Piblings?
Last edited by iisjreg on Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Dracomax » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:15 pm UTC

Exodies wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
mojacardave wrote:
Exodies wrote:Bit of out-of-Time gossip: I ordered some photochromatic jazz sunglasses today. They become more translucent the more light there is. It's like a hipness amplifier.


It may be that I've missed the joke, but based on my understanding of what translucent means, 'more translucent' surely doesn't make sense.
More transparent or more opaque, sure, but translucent is somewhere in the middle...


Boring reality from an optical engineer: 'translucent' refers to a material which passes light but does not maintain phase or propagation angle, such as frosted glass. Translucent materials can have a range of absorption (or throughput) values, just as partially transparent materials can. The difference is that transparent materials do not foul up the wavefront. A lens can bend the wavefront (e.g. bring it to focus) but does not cause random scatter. So, yeah, translucent sunglasses would be a bad idea if you want to see where you're going.


Y'all go on as if words have meanings other than those the speaker wants them to have. Let me put it another way: the glasses let less light through the less light there is. Now do you see the futility of it? Good.
Don't they sound wonderful?

I get what you are saying, but..."words have meanings other than those the speaker wants them to have" is kind of the basis of communication. otherwise, 'Nazi spoonfish eagle chittering' is just a valid sentence asking for pie, because that's what I want it to mean.

Words have no inherent meaning. money has no inherent value. Both are defined by what the consensus agrees them to be. In the case of words, this is codified in dictionaries.
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:17 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


I use niblings to reference my siblings' children.
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
treadman
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby treadman » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:21 pm UTC

histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


Fight? Who's fighting? I'm a huge proponent of "singular they," much to the chagrin of my former journalist friend. I'm only inventing new words for fun. Sorry if that gets under your skin. :?


No, I don't mean there's fighting in this particular discussion. This discussion is actually rather interesting. I just meant it as a general observation, as when English teachers correct me for using "they" as a singular pronoun. I find language fascinating. It's hard to gauge mood in text, but I'm certainly not peeved or anything. I'll say, though, that the first time I saw the term "s/he" in print, I was a bit irked.

Niblings for siblings' children! Love it, SBN!

User avatar
StratPlayer
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby StratPlayer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:22 pm UTC

Dracomax wrote:
...<snip>...

'Nazi spoonfish eagle chittering' is just a valid sentence asking for pie, because that's what I want it to mean.


At least you used the polite form as a request, instead of demanding pie: "Nazi spoonfish Velociraptor chittering!"
Former Forever member of the OTT, now moved on to other things sucked back in by the wowterful wonder of the thread...

OTT: Sit it vivet in aeternum!!!


(My Blog: The Creative Outlet of StratPlayer )

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Dracomax » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:25 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


Fight? Who's fighting? I'm a huge proponent of "singular they," much to the chagrin of my former journalist friend. I'm only inventing new words for fun. Sorry if that gets under your skin. :?


No, I don't mean there's fighting in this particular discussion. This discussion is actually rather interesting. I just meant it as a general observation, as when English teachers correct me for using "they" as a singular pronoun. I find language fascinating. It's hard to gauge mood in text, but I'm certainly not peeved or anything. I'll say, though, that the first time I saw the term "s/he" in print, I was a bit irked.

Niblings for siblings' children! Love it, SBN!

I just call them hobbits. they're (currently) 0.60960m-1.0668m(2-3.5 feet), often barefoot, and eat six times a day.
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:25 pm UTC

People like me dress alike and follow each other around.
I really must go for coffee.
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

User avatar
kryton
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kryton » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:26 pm UTC

Dracomax wrote:
treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
treadman wrote:Genderless pronoun contest? There already is a genderless pronoun: they, them, their.

For example:

If anyone really cares about a good, comfortable-sounding usage of a genderless pronoun, one that is already in use by the general (non-grammar-Nazi types) public, they should use "they", rather than "s/he" (oooh, hate that one.). Their usage of this term sounds normal. Should they get corrected by someone, they should tell them that there's nothing wrong with using "they" as a singular pronoun.

For any of you who disagree, I will gladly discuss it with them, but I can't see that creating new strange-sounding words will ever catch on when there is a perfectly acceptable one already in use.


People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


Fight? Who's fighting? I'm a huge proponent of "singular they," much to the chagrin of my former journalist friend. I'm only inventing new words for fun. Sorry if that gets under your skin. :?


No, I don't mean there's fighting in this particular discussion. This discussion is actually rather interesting. I just meant it as a general observation, as when English teachers correct me for using "they" as a singular pronoun. I find language fascinating. It's hard to gauge mood in text, but I'm certainly not peeved or anything. I'll say, though, that the first time I saw the term "s/he" in print, I was a bit irked.

Niblings for siblings' children! Love it, SBN!

I just call them hobbits. they're (currently) 0.60960m-1.0668m(2-3.5 feet), often barefoot, and eat six times a day.



The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."

Oh and "My parent's siblings" is genderless, as is "my sibling's kids" which is doubly genderlessless.
1298 and counting

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:26 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
Niblings for siblings' children! Love it, SBN!


To be fair, I wasn't even first to mention it in this thread, let alone IRL.

iisjreg wrote:
Niblings :)
added: and Piblings?
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
Flado
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:38 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Time on NP 1084/1947; Schizoblitzed NP1156-1170
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Flado » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:31 pm UTC

kryton wrote:Oh and "My parents' siblings" is genderless, as is "my siblings' kids" which is doubly genderlessless.

FTFY

ADD: And "My parents' siblings' kids" = my cousins is then triply genderlesslessless?
Patriarch of the Western Paradox Church (ret'd)
-
All the stars are dust on my screen -- Marsh'n
The best computer game is a compiler. -- Exodies
I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was mistaken. -- ucim
You have to grow older. You need not grow up. -- bmonk

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Dracomax » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:37 pm UTC

Flado wrote:
kryton wrote:Oh and "My parents' siblings" is genderless, as is "my siblings' kids" which is doubly genderlessless.

FTFY

ADD: And "My parents' siblings' kids" = my cousins is then triply genderlesslessless?

wasn't cousins already sufficiently genderless?
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

User avatar
iisjreg
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:12 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby iisjreg » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:38 pm UTC

Flado wrote:
kryton wrote:Oh and "My parents' siblings" is genderless, as is "my siblings' kids" which is doubly genderlessless.


DAMN YOU!

ADD: And "My parents' siblings' kids" = my cousins is then triply genderlesslessless?


FTFY :wink:

User avatar
histrion
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby histrion » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:39 pm UTC

Dracomax wrote:I just call them hobbits. they're (currently) 0.60960m-1.0668m(2-3.5 feet), often barefoot, and eat six times a day.


Wow... 0.83820 ± 0.22860m? They won't stay that height for long on six meals a day. Unless they really are hobbits.
histrion, a.k.a. Sir Water of Ten, OKT, Archimandrite of Amicable Apostasy. Cheering on Blitzgirl, just because!

Time is a molecular acid.

User avatar
Roia
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:50 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Roia » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41 pm UTC

I'm confused at what FTFY means. I thought it was 'Fixed that for you' but now I'm not so sure.

Also, I brave the Outside for a few newpix and you're all arguing about how many 'watches' to put in a sentences and what would be considered a genderless word for certain family members. Time has truly affected our minds.
The World is Waiting, Anticipating...

lazy-bunny.com - Blog.

42isall
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:39 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby 42isall » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

I've been lurking since about the 7th newpic, but I just felt like adding in now. Is it just me, or has the water level been rising a LOT faster recently?
Also, wasn't expecting to find a genderless pronoun conversation on here when I checked today. Its been a while since I've seen that anywhere but tumblr...

User avatar
htom
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:13 am UTC
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby htom » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:45 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
treadman wrote:
histrion wrote:
People like you make reinventing the world all the more difficult.


People like me think about other things in language that I find more interesting than genderless pronouns. Things like, why is it we have the words niece and nephew, but no nephlings or something genderless for them. Or why is there an aunt and uncle, but no genderless term. We have parents and siblings and cousins. Please discuss those and reinvent those words, but give up the genderless pronoun fight.


I use niblings to reference my siblings' children.


I've done this, too, and propose "pabling" (from parents' sibling) and "pablings" for unspecified aunts and/or uncles.
cmyk wrote:How can I be so riveted to the Internet equivalent of watching grass grow?

Questions? Spoilers! TimeWiki, geekwagon, The Book of Aubron, ExplainXKCD
mscha wrote:We can ignore reality; in fact, we'll have to, since only Randall knows what it is.

mgmfa
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:00 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mgmfa » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

Does anyone else think that they're building the Disney logo?


Also, why can't I post images?

rmsgrey
Posts: 2909
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

kryton wrote:The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."


Though I hear reports that "y'all" is now being used as both singular and plural in some places.

How long until "all y'all" follows suit?

User avatar
StratPlayer
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby StratPlayer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:54 pm UTC

mgmfa wrote:Does anyone else think that they're building the Disney logo?


Also, why can't I post images?


Every 400 newpixs, Lord Randall randomly selects a new forum member to torment with the inability to post links and pictures. You must sell all your possessions and send the money to me in order to appease him. If you do this with maximum haste, he may smile upon you and grant you the forum privileges you seek.
Former Forever member of the OTT, now moved on to other things sucked back in by the wowterful wonder of the thread...

OTT: Sit it vivet in aeternum!!!


(My Blog: The Creative Outlet of StratPlayer )

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:55 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
kryton wrote:The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."


Though I hear reports that "y'all" is now being used as both singular and plural in some places.

How long until "all y'all" follows suit?

Does y'all predate the migration to the new world?
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

jolleychris
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jolleychris » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:56 pm UTC

So short of reading the last 200 or so pages, what have I missed here?
Did I miss anything revolutionary? I mean besides the fact that when last I looked, a surprisingly comprehensive emerging religion seemed to have formed around this comic... I was going to put time aside make my own holy trebuchet and everything.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 8808
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Both Present and Past..... Schizoblitz: 80/2580 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:57 pm UTC

Quest progress: 203 out of 286 pages.
Second Megan Period. NP 291.

I have encountered a message from the future! It reads thus:
Smithers wrote:Dear BlitzGirl,
after all of your messages into the future, I felt compelled to reply by sending one into the past. I hope this message finds you well and that your quest continues strong.

Godspeed,
Smithers

It is the first post I have encountered that references my Quest; through the magic of edits, it pre-dates even my own signposts to myself. It is a beacon as I wade across the sea/not-sea of posts electing the Pope of the One True Comic. All is not lost. There is hope yet for me, future-dwellers (or rather, those who dwell in the present Time of this thread, while I stalk through its past)! One day, if all bodes well, I shall meet you among the living newpages. Until then, I journey onward!
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<-Blog
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
Flotter
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:33 am UTC
Location: Heerenveen, NL

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Flotter » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:59 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
kryton wrote:The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."


Though I hear reports that "y'all" is now being used as both singular and plural in some places.

How long until "all y'all" follows suit?

As in "Will all y'all shut up about genderlessness!"?

User avatar
Dracomax
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Dracomax » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:00 pm UTC

jolleychris wrote:So short of reading the last 200 or so pages, what have I missed here?
Did I miss anything revolutionary? I mean besides the fact that when last I looked, a surprisingly comprehensive emerging religion seemed to have formed around this comic... I was going to put time aside make my own holy trebuchet and everything.

Well, the religion split into 2 +1 different sects, formed an inquisition, and is in the process of trying to form a knighthood(I prefer Knights Temporal or Knights(') Watch, myself)

Also, trebuchet are still holy but there is a holy acronym as well.
“have i gone mad?
im afraid so, but let me tell you something, the best people usualy are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

User avatar
Flotter
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:33 am UTC
Location: Heerenveen, NL

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Flotter » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:00 pm UTC

Image

User avatar
treadman
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby treadman » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:05 pm UTC

Flotter wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
kryton wrote:The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."


Though I hear reports that "y'all" is now being used as both singular and plural in some places.

How long until "all y'all" follows suit?

As in "Will all y'all shut up about genderlessness!"?


And for those of you in New Jersey, "Youz should all shut up about it already."

User avatar
higgs-boson
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:00 pm UTC
Location: Europe (UTC + 4 newpix)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby higgs-boson » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:07 pm UTC

treadman wrote:
Flotter wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
kryton wrote:The south never agreed that 'you' as both singular and plural worked.
- "You, go over there"
> "just me or both of us?"
- "I meant y'all go over there"
> "oh, we can do that."

Though I hear reports that "y'all" is now being used as both singular and plural in some places.

How long until "all y'all" follows suit?

As in "Will all y'all shut up about genderlessness!"?

And for those of you in New Jersey, "Youz should all shut up about it already."

Yalla! Yalla!

(I cannot see any gender problems here)
Apostolic Visitator, Holiest of Holy Fun-Havers
You have questions about XKCD: "Time"? There's a whole Wiki dedicated to it!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GnomeAnne, ViKing and 33 guests