The Official ZBB Quote Thread

Nuntar · Post by **Nuntar** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:26 am

http://www.kutjara.com/wiki/index.php?title=Word_of_Ren

Echobeats · Post by **Echobeats** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:43 am

Nuntar wrote:http://www.kutjara.com/wiki/index.php?title=Word_of_Ren

Ahahahahaha, ahahaha, hah!

I'd almost forgotten about that. Didn't he claim he got an A for it? The "Works Cited" is just too good!

Tim.

Miekko · Post by **Miekko** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:22 am

Grath wrote:
Space Dracula wrote:
Hokulani wrote:
Echobeats wrote:
Cro Magnon wrote: You sting me, I squash you!
That is fantastic! :mrgreen::mrgreen:
Classic ZBB!
Not funny at all!

Imagine! Spack is right and no one gets it.

Dazi · Post by **Dazi** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:49 am

wurdbendur wrote:Dodging quarks is not fun when they're so much bigger than you are. They hurt!

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.p ... 555#306555

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:11 pm

Echobeats wrote:
Nuntar wrote:http://www.kutjara.com/wiki/index.php?title=Word_of_Ren
Ahahahahaha, ahahaha, hah!

I'd almost forgotten about that. Didn't he claim he got an A for it? The "Works Cited" is just too good!

Tim.

::bows::

Delalyra · Post by **Delalyra** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:15 pm

from the "Other Conlanger Communitites?" thread in Ephermea

Finlay wrote:
Krinnen wrote:
Shm Jay wrote:However, do any of them have their own legislature? I think not. This shows how superior we are.
All we need now is finlay saying something about the zbb having lemmings... (just kidding)
However, do any of them have their own lemmings? I think not. This shows how superior we are.

Brel · Post by **Brel** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:13 pm

Abbastanza wrote:
Trebor wrote: I've noticed some people confusing /slashes/ and /brackets/ in regard to phonetic transcription, and this bugs me for some reason.
I don't think it's only them.

Trebor · Post by **Trebor** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:55 pm

Euskera wrote:
Abbastanza wrote:
Trebor wrote: I've noticed some people confusing /slashes/ and /brackets/ in regard to phonetic transcription, and this bugs me for some reason.
I don't think it's only them.

I' prolly being dense, but I don't quite see the humour in that...

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:02 pm

Trebor wrote:
Euskera wrote:
Abbastanza wrote:
Trebor wrote: I've noticed some people confusing /slashes/ and /brackets/ in regard to phonetic transcription, and this bugs me for some reason.
I don't think it's only them.
I' prolly being dense, but I don't quite see the humour in that...

Well, "slashes" and "brackets" have both been enclosed in slashes by you, where what would have been expected would be for you to enclose "slashes" in slashes and "brackets" in brackets. This makes it look as though you can't tell the difference between slashes and brackets, so those people who irritate you by confusing them are not the only ones, since you apparently confuse them too.

If I type "/slashes/ and (brackets)" what does your screen-reader say?

Abbastanza · Post by **Abbastanza** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:24 pm

Radius Solis wrote:We love you too, Dudicon. Now stop jacking off to pictures of Princess Zelda and get to work on a fucking conlang for once.

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=13174

Pure gold.

Trebor · Post by **Trebor** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:19 pm

quentin wrote:Well, "slashes" and "brackets" have both been enclosed in slashes by you, where what would have been expected would be for you to enclose "slashes" in slashes and "brackets" in brackets. This makes it look as though you can't tell the difference between slashes and brackets, so those people who irritate you by confusing them are not the only ones, since you apparently confuse them too.

D'oh!!! I am very... absentminded indeed

If I type "/slashes/ and (brackets)" what does your screen-reader say?

It says, quote slash slashes slash and left parenth brackets right parenth",.

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:15 pm

Trebor wrote:
If I type "/slashes/ and (brackets)" what does your screen-reader say?
It says, quote slash slashes slash and left parenth brackets right parenth",.

Okay. I thought there was a slim possibility that it read "/" and "(" as the same thing, for some reason, so that your "mistake" would have been justified.

Whimemsz · Post by **Whimemsz** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:41 pm

quentin wrote:
Trebor wrote:
If I type "/slashes/ and (brackets)" what does your screen-reader say?
It says, quote slash slashes slash and left parenth brackets right parenth",.
Okay. I thought there was a slim possibility that it read "/" and "(" as the same thing, for some reason, so that your "mistake" would have been justified.

Except that ( and ) are parentheses. [ and ] are brackets.

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:52 pm

Technically yes, but I was just being colloquial. In informal speech calling "()" brackets is perfectly acceptable, IMD.

Seriously, I did know that difference but I'd forgotten about it. And in informal speech I do just call them brackets.

Åge Kruger · Post by **Åge Kruger** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:07 pm

What? Speak up.

Echobeats · Post by **Echobeats** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:01 pm

Whimemsz wrote:Except that ( and ) are parentheses. [ and ] are brackets.

() ? brackets
[] ? square brackets
<> ? angle brackets
{} ? curly brackets.

The only thing I would call a parenthesis is a part of a sentence (such as this) that is enclosed in brackets. But I know this whole thing is a British/American difference.

Yours, Tim.

Trebor · Post by **Trebor** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:46 pm

[quote="In the Ephemera thread entitled "Cheney: "Can we torture them? Pretty please?"" started by Feijuada in response to this article, bi"][...] Saddam's torture is wrong because Saddam is a dictator. The US's torture is right because Bush is a democratically elected leader, and being democratically elected means that Everything He Does Is Absolutely Right (unless the elected leader is a leftist, then he's no different from a dictator, and Everything He Does Is Absolutely Wrong).

Remember, the rule is always this: Everything that a dictator does -- especially when the dictator goes against US interests -- is wrong. Everything that a democratically elected leader does -- especially when the leader follows US interests, or if the leader himself belongs to the US -- is right. So, when a dictator feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, enlightens the ignorant, punishes the guilty, and protects the innocent, he is still wrong, because He Is A Dictator. If a democratically elected leader starves the hungry, mocks the naked, confuses the ignorant, protects the guilty, and punishes the innocent, he is still right, because He Is Democratically Elected.

(To see why: the only reason a dictator would want to do good is to consolidate his power; in contrast, an elected leader may do some bad things, but they're all for the greater good of spreading freedom.)

In addition, every insurgency group that's supported by a dictator is a group of Terrorists(tm), and every insurgency group that's supported by a democratic leader is a group of Freedom Fighters(tm). The weapons used by Terrorists(tm) are Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the weapons used by Freedom Fighters(tm) are Weapons of Mass Defence. Also, every criticism of a dictator is an act of patriotism, and every criticism of an elected leader is an act of treason -- because, as I just explained, dictators are always wrong, and elected leaders are always right.

Remember: Bush was democratically elected. He was democratically elected. In addition, he's Christian, and he's a capitalist. It follows, then, that Bush Is Just As Infallible As God Himself. Going against Bush is going against America and going against God, and this is treason of the highest order. Court -- dismissed![/quote]

In the same thread, he also wrote:Ah, the Founding Fathers. By Jove, why's it that people who portray various people as being infallible are precisely those who claim to respect God as the only infallible being? And why's it that those who keep saying that "the Founding Fathers wanted X" are precisely those who ignore some of the Founding Fathers' words when they prove inconvenient? Some clues: the Constitution clearly talks about a "well-regulated militia", yet many "Founding Father"-types insist on removing all regulations on gun ownership. Jefferson opined that "the doctrines which he [Jesus] [...] delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible", yet fundamentalist wingnuts would portray the "Founding Fathers" as a monolithic bunch who believed completely in Christianity. He also pointed out that "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. [...] laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind", and -- guess what? -- the Founding-Father-thumpers ignore precisely this advice, and treat the US Constitution as some sort of immutable code. And here's a quote by James Madison: "Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right" -- it should be glaringly obvious how well this squares with certain people's idea that property is a natural right. And so on.

Regarding hypocrisy, I vaguely remember that a Chinese writer once said, "just like us, the Westerners also engage in exploitation, but at least they do it behind a veil of hypocrisy." Woohoo!

Echobeats · Post by **Echobeats** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:43 am

Trebor wrote:[quote="In the Ephemera thread entitled "Cheney: "Can we torture them? Pretty please?"" started by Feijuada in response to this article, bi"][A lot of stuff]

[/quote]
That was quality!

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:40 am

Echobeats wrote:() ? brackets
[] ? square brackets
<> ? angle brackets
{} ? curly brackets.

Pretty much what I say, except I would usually call "<>" angled brackets.

But I know this whole thing is a British/American difference.

I didn't know that.

Echobeats · Post by **Echobeats** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:13 am

quentin wrote:
Echobeats wrote:() ? brackets
[] ? square brackets
<> ? angle brackets
{} ? curly brackets.
Pretty much what I say, except I would usually call "<>" angled brackets.

Perhaps that what it's supposed to be and I just never heard the /d/. After all, when writing you generally just write the things themselves rather than the name.

Tim.

civman2000 · Post by **civman2000** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:51 am

Echobeats wrote:
Whimemsz wrote:Except that ( and ) are parentheses. [ and ] are brackets.
() ? brackets
[] ? square brackets
<> ? angle brackets
{} ? curly brackets.

The only thing I would call a parenthesis is a part of a sentence (such as this) that is enclosed in brackets. But I know this whole thing is a British/American difference.

Yours, Tim.

I know Americans who call () brackets. But for me, they are definitely parentheses, and "brackets" are [], though they can also be called "square brackets" to distinguish them from other types (but in isolation, "brackets" always means [], even in a context that might make you think otherwise). I also use both "curly brackets" and "braces" for {}.

GOD

Åge Kruger · Post by **Åge Kruger** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:51 am

Code: Select all

() brackets
[] squackets
<> genackets
{} braces

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:18 am

Genackets? I've never heard that one before, and neither has Google, apparently. I can see that "squackets" is from "square brackets", presumably, but how is "genackets" derived? "General brackets" is all I can think of, but that doesn't really make sense.

Abbastanza · Post by **Abbastanza** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:33 am

quentin wrote:Genackets? I've never heard that one before, and neither has Google, apparently. I can see that "squackets" is from "square brackets", presumably, but how is "genackets" derived? "General brackets" is all I can think of, but that doesn't really make sense.

That's because it was a joke.

quentin · Post by **quentin** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:39 am

Still, how did you come up with the "gen-"? Or was it just random?