Thread: Say Something that is Pointless but Sounds Smart

Hm...I must say, this is an awesome thread idea.

...Okay, gotta get started and all worked up. *ahem*

As the parallel universe theory seems in itself impossible, there must be some other explanation. And so, there must be only one universe, but how do we explain certain paradoxes arising from time travel? What would happen if you attempted to shoot your grandma in the past? According to the parallel universe theory, your grandma would die, but you would continue to exist in a modified branch of the universe. But again, we must seek another explanation disregarding the possibility of two universes. I'd speculate that you could not kill your grandmother--something would prevent it. This prevention must be traced to the source, yourself. There is no concievable way that a paradox could stop your free will and cognition, so we must take one step ahead, to the weapon. Say one used a gun--the gun must therefore cease to exist, because it cannot kill that which created the being that unleashes its potential. But Conservation of Matter doesn't allow the gun to simply dissapear, so it must change form. It couldn't change to energy--the energy released would kill both you and your grandmother as well as anybody else within a few kilometers of your location. So it must stay as matter. Since no one form seems more likely to take the gun's place than any other form, anything non-lethal is possible.

And hence i show ye undeniable proof that if you try to shoot your grandmother in the past, you'll likely be left holding a chicken rather than a gun.

ACETYL*SERYL*TYROSYL*SERYL*ISO*LEUCYL*THREONYL*SER YL*PROLYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*VALYL*PHE NYL*ALANYL*LEUCYL*SERYL*SERYL*VALYL*TRYPTOPHYL*ALA NYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*ISOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*LEUC YL*ASPARAGINYL*VALYL*CYSTEINYL*THREONYL*SERYL*SERY L*LEUCYL*GLYCYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALAN YL*GLUTAMINYL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*ALANY L*ARGINYL*THREONYL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*VALYL*GLUTA MINYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*VA LYL*TRYPTOPHYL*LYSYL*PROLYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*G LUTAMINYL*SERYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ARGINYL*PHENYL*ALAN YL*PROLYL*GLYCYL*ASPARTYL*VALYL*TYROSYL*LYSYL*VALY L*TYROSYL*ARGINYL*TYROSYL*ASPARAGINYL*ALANYL*VALYL *LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*LEUCYL*ISOLEUCYL*THREONYL* ALANYL*LEUCYL*LEUCYL*GLYCYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL *ASPARTYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ASPARAGINYL*ARGINYL*ISO LEUCYL*ISOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*VALYL*GLUTAMYL*ASPARAGIN YL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*SERYL*PROLYL*THREONYL*THR EONYL*ALANYL*GLUTAMYL*THREONYL*LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*ALA NYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ARGINYL*VALYL*ASPARTYL*ASPART YL*ALANYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ALANYL*ISOLEUCYL*ARGINYL* SERYL*ALANYL*ASPARAGINYL*ISOLEUCYL*ASPARAGINYL*LEU CYL*VALYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*ARGINY L*GLYCYL*THREONYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*TYROSYL*ASPARAGINY L*GLUTAMINYL*ASPARAGINYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*GL UTAMYL*SERYL*METHIONYL*SERYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*T RYPTOPHYL*THREONYL*SERYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*ALANYL*SERI NE allows for insidious health complications.

My science teacher showed that most people are amazed at people's answers when someone repeats a question given before the answer.

Star Trek : Digimon :: Star Wars : Pokemon

From this analogy, one must conclude that since Trek is superior to Wars, that Digimon must in fact be superior to Pokemon. However, if we take into account a second party's Wars fanatacism, then the equation is reversed, making the second grouping (i.e. Wars and Pokemon) the superior. However, if one's fanatacism involves Pokemon, then the pairing is no longer dependant upon the prearranged setup, therefore allowing any combination to be superior, i.e. Pokemon and Star Trek, Digimon and Star Wars, Star Trek and Star Wars, Pokemon and Digimon.

To determine the superiority of yet unnamed entities, we use the equation of Fanatic Relativity, which is written:

F=Pt/pt(mw/lw)^2

or spelled out, Fanaticism equals Personal taste over popular taste, multiplied by monetary worth over life worth squared.

So let us thus calculate the Relative Fanatacism of Michael Jackson.

MJF=100/60(200/900)^2

We get for an answer 100/729, or 0.137174211, which to the nearest thousandth rounds to 0.137, which becomes 13.7%

So Michael Jackson has a current fanatacism percentage of 13.7%

perception is reality

Holy shit, Yume!!!

Your post makes the thread like 5 screens wide!

Well, that didn\'t sound smart but it wasn\'t pointless either

Originally posted by sephiroth clock

Contrarily, the multiverse, which in simultaneously percieves the observer, which pertains to the ultraverse, which is to say the nature of our reality, erego, the perception of the five senses, visa vi the greater end of the ultimate quandary, which would be derelict enough to prove both right and wrong at the same time, denying the existenece of either, which in turn exists as the metaphysical multiverse in congruence with the substantiary physical reality created by the ultraverse, in turn denying the existence of anything.

This sounds like something Leo Volont would write.

Casual & Senseless Conversational Archetypes

It has been noted in the past few days how repetitive and useless many of
the conversations that occupy our daily lives are. Fred Lee observed that
by the end of the year in Norton Hall, no one could even go to the restroom
without getting bogged down in five minutes of meaningless drivel, or, as
Quentin Tarantino so eloquently put it, "mindless, boring,
getting-to-know-you chit-chat." With that in mind, here's a shorthand guide
to many conversations one can be faced with, and their corresponding
numbers. Ideally, when one senses that another cliched conversation is upon
him, one can simply say the number, or just raise a finger, and then
proceed with the rest of one's life.

1) Any conversation that is about politics, but doesn't feature any actual
knowledge from the talkers

This can be summarized as; "I believe Clinton will be impeached because
blah blah blah damned liberals" or "Kenneth Starr is a big jerk blah blah
blah right-wing conspiracy." Just raise a finger, and don't even think
about saying the phrase; "It tastes good."

2) "Hey, what are you doing tonight?"

Nobody cares what you're doing tonight. They just asked out of politeness.
And, whether you say "going to a party" or "studying" or even "masturbating
while listening to No Doubt" the response will invariably be, "That's
cool." Don't go down that road, my friends.

3) One person expresses sexual desire for a third party, and outlines
possible plans for obtaining sex or a relationship

Saying "three" could be replaced by simply saying, "hypothalamus," but that might prove cumbersome.

4) The Difference Between Men and Women

Comment about gender difference. Example. Small laughter. Ludicrous
extension of first example. More laughter. Agreement and mutual wonder at
the grand difference between men and women.

5) A reference to some element of pop culture known to all

Hey, remember the Smurfs? Wasn't it weird that there was only one girl?
Hey, remember that 'Seinfeld' episode where all of their plans get
frustrated in the end? Wasn't that great? Don't you want to relive the
magic of sharing that cultural moment again and again and again? And again?

6) Drug use

This covers plans to get drunk/high, stories about those crazy things done
while drunk/high, cool places to go/cool things to do while drunk/high,
and assurances that one will never get drunk/high ever again, at least for
a while. Most importantly, this covers conversations about being drunk/high
that take place while drunk/high. "Boy, this controlled substance has
really altered my perceptions of myself since before I was under the
influence of this controlled substance."

7) Embodiment
Isn't it weird that we have bodies? Defecation, urination, menstruation,
satiation of biological needs through eating or drinking, working out, or
any mention of physical comfort/discomfort fall into this definition. It
boils down to commenting on the strangeness that our consciousness is
attached to a physical body.

This Typographical Theory of Conversations is not without its limitations,
however. Conversations about conversations (meta-conversations) are not
covered by this shorthand guide. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also states
that there are true conversations that cannot be derived by the
Typographical Theory of Conversations, as well as false conversations
produced by said theory. That being said, it is hoped that this guide can
expedite your small talk and leave more time for the truly important things
in life; namely, this hot girl named Amy on my floor. (3)

* * *

There have been comments about the limitations of the Typographical
Conversation Theory; namely, that there are some mindless discussions not
covered. After consideration, Pentavirate West has decided to amend the
theory to make it a more powerful and comprehensive tool.

8.) Sports

In the immortal words of philosopher Frederick Lee, "Let's get tall." This covers
discussions of watching sports, playing sports, handicapping sports,
injuries suffered through sports, or even listening to the Huey Lewis and
the News album "Sports." This category contains elements of #1 (Uninformed
discussions) and parts of #7 (physical discomfort), but is quite effective,
especially when faced with a veritable barrage of tall, marginally educated
student-athletes in one's college life.

9) Art

Have you seen this movie? Is Scorsese a good director? Do you actually know
anything about film to make this judgment, or are you simply talking out
your ass? Any uninformed discussion of art, full of pretentiousness and
bluster, falls into this category. Again, similarity is seen to #1, but it
is the opinion of Pentavirate West that this is a large enough
conversational annoyance to necessitate its own division and number.

*Special note on combined conversations:

A question has been raised as to what designation should go to
conversations that contain elements of more than one type, e.g. An athlete
discussing his plans to get drunk in the evening following a game (#2, #6,
#8 ) seemingly falls into many categories. What is the informed
conversational theorist to do? While it is possible to raise the
appropriate number of fingers for each of the conversational cliches
present, a more effective solution is to simply choose the predominant
cliche, and utilize its signal. Ultimately, specificity is less important
than just making the boring conversation go away.

Intrinsically speaking, a neuromemorabilic search for the various possible responses and opinions within the vast ranges of my neural networks will over time, absolutely and technically conclude, that the target recompensation to your intellectual request is currently void of existence or likelihood.

~translation~ "Um, I don't the answer to your question."

There are many scientists that might have one believe that the crystalization of corned beef could inevitably lead to the discovery of immortality or other amazing advances in technology, but I must say that it is exactly the opposite. The liquifying of corned beef could in fact lead us to that mighty conclusion, because making a beverage out of that liquid corned beef could be the precise agent that could lead us into the age of immortality.

Originally posted by Hate
Holy shit, Yume!!!

Your post makes the thread like 5 screens wide!

Well, that didn\'t sound smart but it wasn\'t pointless either

I could have said tobacco, but I thought that would be too vague so I used the scientific term for it. 1173 letters.

I am so smart. I am so smart. S M R T. I mean S M A R T.

Strangely enough the physic logical study of the advised equal practice of the trying public will in no time correlate with the inconsistencies of reproved angles of many trained aspics. Lets not forget the same principles applied to energies devoted to nothing more or less that all our efforts put to trial. Saying that this has brought enlightenment to the maybe four centuries of simple core coded reproaches that represent what we take to our fellow coworkers without any thought from thinking. Said in the oust about the angle we must use to provide what can and will be stable if all tendencies of every hour it is used up and without trying to make yourself to overly confident with respect to all thing we talked about. I hope this sheds light or maybe a vector witch will conclude this subject no later then you think it should be. Right?

Puccini was, in fact, part of the verismo era. And to say that he was less verismo than Verdi is a moot point, seeing as how the latter failed at properly representing several cultures during his attempts exoticism. As did Puccini, however the musical style has more to do with verismo than the drama. A relatively stretched libretto can still be conducive to the verismo style (eg: La Boheme, Puccini).

So take that Maxim you poo conductor.

This thread mediates what I was when I was not to be. Seriously, we did not today or cautiously find any colorful aspect in time, sound or places that been waved. I just one more yes and that not, so why do any trouble around would pick up another simple letdown, of course but.Could on go for never. Will I

Wow, I'm against some tough competition

lemme see...
If there is nothing that is nothing, surely there has to be something that is nothing. Yet how is that possible for there to be any way for nothingness to not exist? Wouldn't someone know they were nothing, yet how could they comprehend it?

or maybe E=MC Hammer?

Originally posted by fourth_esper
or maybe E=MC Hammer?

this is great :bravo:

I'm glad we're on page two, cause it was annoyin how we have to keep scrolling right to read everything.
Well. We are ourselves, in other words, we are conscious of the fact that we are ourselves, for simple reasons.
You know you're who you are because you've been yourself all your life, you live like yourself, and you know you are yourself
For instance, A man named G147 would believe he is G147 because he was G147 all his life, he lives like a G147, and he knows that he is a G147.
Therefore the man is a G147 only because he believes he is a G147.
Hence we are only held together in this body by belief. But what if we were to believe that we are someone else?
What if G147 thought like a F54, acted like F54, lived like F54, knew he had been F54 all his life, and believed he was an F54?
Wouldn't his consciousness move from a G147 to an F54?
And thus the man named G147 would now be an F54, living like an F54, know he has been one all his life, and believes he is a F54, never realizing he was once a G147.

your mom

Originally posted by Yume
ACETYL*SERYL*TYROSYL*SERYL*ISO*LEUCYL*THREONYL*SER YL*PROLYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*VALYL*PHE NYL*ALANYL*LEUCYL*SERYL*SERYL*VALYL*TRYPTOPHYL*ALA NYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*ISOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*LEUCYL*ASPARAGI NYL*VALYL*CYSTEINYL*THREONYL*SERYL*SERYL*LEUCYL*GL YCYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*GLUTAMIN YL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTAMINYL*ALANYL*ARGINYL*T HREONYL*THREONYL*GLUTAMINYL*VALYL*GLUTAMINYL*GLUTA MINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*SERYL*GLUTAMINYL*VALYL*TRYPTOP HYL*LYSYL*PROLYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*GLUTAMINYL*S ERYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ARGINYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*G LYCYL*ASPARTYL*VALYL*TYROSYL*LYSYL*VALYL*TYROSYL*ARGINYL*TYROSY L*ASPARAGINYL*ALANYL*VALYL*LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*PROLYL*LEUCYL*ISOLEUCYL*THREONYL*ALANYL*LEUCYL*L EUCYL*GLYCYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*ASPARTYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ASPARAGINYL*ARGINYL*ISOLEUCYL*I SOLEUCYL*GLUTAMYL*VALYL*GLUTAMYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTA MINYL*GLUTAMINYL*SERYL*PROLYL*THREONYL*THREONYL*AL ANYL*GLUTAMYL*THREONYL*LEUCYL*ASPARTYL*ALANYL*THREONYL*ARGINYL*ARGINYL*VALYL*ASPARTYL*ASPARTYL*ALANYL*THREONYL*VALYL*ALANYL*ISOLEUCYL*ARGINYL*S ERYL*ALANYL*ASPARAGINYL*ISOLEUCYL*ASPARAGINYL*LEUC YL*VALYL*ASPARAGINYL*GLUTAMYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*ARGINYL *GLYCYL*THREONYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*TYROSYL*ASPARAGINYL *GLUTAMINYL*ASPARAGINYL*THREONYL*PHENYL*ALANYL*GLU TAMYL*SERYL*METHIONYL*SERYL*GLYCYL*LEUCYL*VALYL*TR YPTOPHYL*THREONYL*SERYL*ALANYL*PROLYL*ALANYL*SERIN E

ASPARTY=That's why that word is so awesome.

Yes, undoubtedly, unequivocally, unabashedly yes.

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue

ASPARTY=That's why that word is so awesome.

There isn't just one. There's 7.

What is?

Originally posted by Yume

There isn't just one. There's 7.

betty here is right there are seven

Aphrodisiomaniatic convergence is a result of euphoric correlation between a profound dissemination and a semi-attached superconductor in unsaturated ether solution.