Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Math for Smarty Pants Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Random Facts; Post and read random facts here!!!
Topic Started: Dec 28 2006, 11:24 PM (2,305 Views)
SmileyFace
Member Avatar
Problem Solver
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes, but "brother" and "brothers" are very similar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michel
Member Avatar
Chipmunk
Smarty Pants
Okay, well, umm....umlauted letters sound different from normal letters. Like oe(umlauted o) sounds like something like a mix of o and u, with a bit of r. NOT LIKE O. Thus, they are different, and it MATTERS!!!! AAARRRGGHHH!!
You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

-Indira Gandhi (1917 - 1984)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olivia
Member Avatar

Global Moderator
No one said that they weren't different, but it is something of a small detail. There are so many other ways to misspell "führer" that leaving out the umlaut is really not that bad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michel
Member Avatar
Chipmunk
Smarty Pants
It is not! It's a big detail! I mean, replacing the f with a z would be better than replacing the ü with a u because without an umlaut, it might be a completely different word! At least with a z it would be so unlikely to be a real word that it would be obvious what was meant.

Like this:
schon means already.
schön mean beautiful/good/nice/etc.

If you mess up the umlauts, the meaning would be completely confused.
You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

-Indira Gandhi (1917 - 1984)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator
Admin
:ph43r:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michel
Member Avatar
Chipmunk
Smarty Pants
Tsk tsk, no-word posts shouldn't be encouraged, should they Mr. Admin?
You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

-Indira Gandhi (1917 - 1984)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olivia
Member Avatar

Global Moderator
Of course they shouldn't be encouraged; that doesn't mean they can't exist. Most people don't need encouragement to be lazy; therefore, it's not necessary to encourage or endorse wordless posts for them to exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moderation
Member Avatar
El Capitan
Admin
Admin
Apr 16 2007, 05:42 PM
:ph43r:

Fine, then I'll merely admonish him and be about my business.


Guidelines
Jan 01 2007, 05:21 PM
If a user posts a topic or reply without any words and just a lone smiley, they will be met with a warning, verbal or official.

Tsk tsk.
I shall moderate you. So beware. Be very aware.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olivia
Member Avatar

Global Moderator
Moderation
May 10 2007, 08:55 PM
Guidelines
Jan 01 2007, 05:21 PM
If a user posts a topic or reply without any words and just a lone smiley, theywill be met with a warning, verbal or official.


So does that mean that a post consisting solely of " :) :) ", that is, two smileys, they won't be warned?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moderation
Member Avatar
El Capitan
Admin
No, it does not. Read the rest of the rules. It mentions words with fewer than four words, as well, which would constitute two-smilie posts.
I shall moderate you. So beware. Be very aware.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator
Admin
I posted that to see if there would be a public outcry, considering the forums appear to be close to dead.

And there was!

'Twas a simple experiment. Ignore.



So....let's talk about....cookies?
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olivia
Member Avatar

Global Moderator
I liked discussing the smileys better, actually. Michel, can you prove that a smiley is not equal to or greater than four words? Because I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Now, if you take the second definition of "picture" according to dictionary.com, which is "any visible image, however produced", you get "any visible image, however produced, is worth a thousand words". Since we're all pretty much in agreement that the smileys in question are visible*, however they happen to be produced, we now have "any smiley* is worth a thousand words". But there were two smileys. So we now have "any two smileys* are worth two thousand words". Since 2000 > 4, the post consisting of " :) :) " contains much more than four words; two thousand, in fact. Hence one should not be warned for such a post.


*visible with the possible exception of :ninja: , which still has visible eyes, so it's not really an exception.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator
Admin
One smiley does not count as a picture here. It's simply a smiley expression such as
Code:
 
:),   or  ;)  or  >:(   or   o_O   or   :o


that is transformed into a picture by a script. I count these as single words, since, if I view your post in an editing mode, I see merely a [doHTML]:o[/doHTML].

Nice point there though, but it's wrong. ;)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michel
Member Avatar
Chipmunk
Smarty Pants
Also, even if it was a picture (which technically it is, the script merely replaces any instances of the 'code things' with the picture) we would have to agree that a picture is worth a thousand words, which I disagree with, as it is not a proven, scientific fact.
You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

-Indira Gandhi (1917 - 1984)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olivia
Member Avatar

Global Moderator
Of course it's a picture, according to the definition I cited: "Any visible image, however produced". It's produced by "code-things", yes, but it is an image, and it's visible, hence it's a picture.

But Michel, none of the facts I cited are "proven, scientific facts". So if you accept one of them, you need to accept them all in order to avoid inconsistency and/or hypocrisy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply