|
Post by nikki on Apr 23, 2009 23:01:13 GMT -5
Larry,
Just couldn't resist, could ya? If not dissing me in public becomes too hard for you, I'll check my PMs for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 24, 2009 1:39:26 GMT -5
Bruce, I'm not that great at solving word problems but, I don't think we should sign off on your formula until you run it by Larry. He teaches the stuff you know. I agree and would like DJ to view it too! Haven't seen him for a very long time!
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 24, 2009 1:47:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 24, 2009 6:47:09 GMT -5
Bruce, The answer is NO, but I do find it curious that you are only curious about the last 8 words. OK nikki,I break the truth to.I have no rating system,it's a joke.I made it up off the top of my head.And they say we liberals are humorless and too serious.Larry wrote up a great interpretation of my system
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 24, 2009 18:30:44 GMT -5
It's pretty complicated.You take the number of posts times key "buzz" words divided by the number of anti-Obama put downs plus number of references to liberals minus references to republicans. This number is then multiplied by 1/2 of positive quotes from Snoop Doggs diary and then is squared .This is your official rating!Jack Oliver is a +2,980,875.Nikki is a -3,000,790.I of course am a perfect 5,000,000.Other ratings by request. Aha! I knew your system was the same as Timothy Geithner's plans for further bailouts!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 24, 2009 19:02:45 GMT -5
It's pretty complicated.You take the number of posts times key "buzz" words divided by the number of anti-Obama put downs plus number of references to liberals minus references to republicans. This number is then multiplied by 1/2 of positive quotes from Snoop Doggs diary and then is squared .This is your official rating!Jack Oliver is a +2,980,875.Nikki is a -3,000,790.I of course am a perfect 5,000,000.Other ratings by request. Aha! I knew your system was the same as Timothy Geithner's plans for further bailouts! Lou-I've got to admit your retort was pretty funny.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 24, 2009 20:40:34 GMT -5
I'm sorry if anyone took my "rating" of others here seriously.I jokingly said I'd "rate"johng after 10 posts.That would be arrogant on my part,and I thought the "explanation" would clue everyone in,but it seems at least one person here took it seriously.The original post about those who could be savaged,etc was off the top of my head.If anyone was offended,I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 24, 2009 20:49:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry if anyone took my "rating" of others here seriously.I jokingly said I'd "rate"johng after 10 posts.That would be arrogant on my part,and I thought the "explanation" would clue everyone in,but it seems at least one person here took it seriously.The original post about those who could be savaged,etc was off the top of my head.If anyone was offended,I apologize. Bruce, As defined by Wikipedia, your apology was close to the classic "Non-apology apology". "An example of a non-apology apology would be to say "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks" to someone who has been offended. This does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and it subtly insinuates that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place." My preference has always been to tell those offended by a harmless remark to "lighten up". Of course the old stand by has always been: "screw 'em if they can't take a joke" Note: I cleaned up that last phrase just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 25, 2009 7:01:03 GMT -5
I was going to use the phrase "lighten up" but then realized one poster might be offended by that.It is sort of a non apology apology.I don't think there was anything wrong with my "joke",but I am shocked that anyone would take such an obviously absurd "formula" for rating others.I guess some thought I was "tracking" every post and keeping track.Oh well,live and learn.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 25, 2009 17:10:35 GMT -5
Where were we before this rating silliness started? Oh yeah. Why is is that conservatives always call a willingness to compromise and meet someone halfway "weakness"? Without compromise, the world really is in perpetual crisis. Which is perhaps what conservatives prefer?
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 26, 2009 9:43:57 GMT -5
Where were we before this rating silliness started? Oh yeah. Why is is that conservatives always call a willingness to compromise and meet someone halfway "weakness"? Without compromise, the world really is in perpetual crisis. Which is perhaps what conservatives prefer? Okay, then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have only cut Nick Berg’s head half off.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 26, 2009 23:10:45 GMT -5
Throughout history there have been people who refuse to compromise. And in the end they often hurt their cause more than they ever helped it...
|
|
|
Post by johng on Apr 27, 2009 20:28:34 GMT -5
Man that is good...I responded to the rating thingee in like joking fashion, unknowing it would start such exchange. That is good stuff and yes the explanation of the system was quiet literate and funny
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 27, 2009 20:44:04 GMT -5
Hey john, how goes it? How was the Roger chat farm today? Sounded like Roger was getting a little paranoid...
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 27, 2009 21:17:05 GMT -5
Man that is good...I responded to the rating thingee in like joking fashion, unknowing it would start such exchange. That is good stuff and yes the explanation of the system was quiet literate and funny My whole family says I have a weird sense of humor.I was flabbergasted on poster took it seriously,wanting to know just how I rated the others.
|
|