| 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: |
| Random Facts; Post and read random facts here!!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 28 2006, 11:24 PM (2,305 Views) | |
| SmileyFace | Mar 13 2007, 09:10 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Problem Solver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, but "brother" and "brothers" are very similar. |
![]() |
|
| Michel | Mar 13 2007, 10:56 PM Post #62 |
![]()
Chipmunk
![]()
|
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) | |
![]() |
|
| Olivia | Mar 21 2007, 09:37 PM Post #63 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Michel | Mar 24 2007, 01:06 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Chipmunk
![]()
|
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) | |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Apr 16 2007, 05:42 PM Post #65 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
:ph43r: |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Michel | Apr 17 2007, 09:29 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Chipmunk
![]()
|
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) | |
![]() |
|
| Olivia | May 10 2007, 12:55 AM Post #67 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Moderation | May 10 2007, 08:55 PM Post #68 |
|
El Capitan
![]()
|
Fine, then I'll merely admonish him and be about my business.
Tsk tsk. |
| I shall moderate you. So beware. Be very aware. | |
![]() |
|
| Olivia | May 10 2007, 10:55 PM Post #69 |
![]()
|
So does that mean that a post consisting solely of "
", that is, two smileys, they won't be warned?
|
![]() |
|
| Moderation | May 10 2007, 11:55 PM Post #70 |
|
El Capitan
![]()
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Admin | May 11 2007, 12:58 AM Post #71 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
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? |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Olivia | May 11 2007, 01:11 AM Post #72 |
![]()
|
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 , which still has visible eyes, so it's not really an exception.
|
![]() |
|
| Admin | May 11 2007, 02:01 PM Post #73 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
One smiley does not count as a picture here. It's simply a smiley expression such as
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.
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Michel | May 11 2007, 09:47 PM Post #74 |
![]()
Chipmunk
![]()
|
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) | |
![]() |
|
| Olivia | May 11 2007, 11:10 PM Post #75 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









, which still has visible eyes, so it's not really an exception.
2:25 PM Jul 11