So, has anyone else noticed that Neil and Bob actually have separate, distinct personalities now? Where they were once virtually indistinguishable, it now seems like Neil is the more ambitious and slightly evil of the two, while Bob is seeming more dippy and good?

Thoughts?

I thought the evil one was Bob?

In Response to zamphir (#14654):

I always thought Neil was evil, and Bob was good. Because I always associate Neil with the lefthand one, and Bob with the righthand one (when they're not in distinctive costumes).

I think this segregation of types all started with "Mom was right, you are the devious one."

In Response to mcgrue (#14657):

I probably shouldn't chime in on this, but I feel bad because you folks are going to go around in circles trying to figure out who is who.

My opinion (and I may be wrong) is that there are two distinct personalities, one somewhat goofy and eager to please, and one angry and violent and lustful. But they share these personalities, switching off between the two of them. This may be because they are aliens, and share some sort of hive mind. Or, it may be because they can't remember which one of them is which.

In Response to jon (#14660):

But I thought Neil was the evil one.

Thoughts?

I think i will now make it my personal mission to try to work Bob's phrase "church-approved sweaty gay pope sex [goats.com]" into as many conversations as possible!

They both seem dippy, but Bob wins bonus points for that utterance.

Now i must investigate this yummy-sounding pork chop god.

In Response to Teledildonix (#14810):

Who are you, and what did you do with my Teledildonix? Only a 60-word posting? Are you feeling all right? You're not drunk are you?

In Response to Amy_thumbelina (#14818):

No drinky-drinky for me. I'm actually quite sober this weekend (i.e., no THC).

My reputation as a big blabber-mouth may be well-deserved. However, i can occasionally be concise. It depends on the circumstances. People here have been telling me for months that they like things to be short and sweet, so i'm willing to make small modifications in my behavior. But i can't promise anything-- i might just show up next week and ramble effusively about some topic, if it happens to push my buttons. :-)

In Response to Teledildonix (#14819):

they like things to be short and sweet
As opposed to your normal preferences... ;-)

In Response to Teledildonix (#14819):

I've gotta admit, I often find myself skipping or skimming long posts. Sorry. Internet message boards are not a place for long, thoughtful discussions, but rather short, vague, and confusing utterances.

In Response to FeldmanSkitzoid (#14821):

You don't need to apologize. I have no desire to be the center of attention, and it would be silly for people to expect me to always say something interesting, or to always make every sentence of my long posts meaningful. I'm one of the least profound people you might meet.

I missed your MST3K avatar briefly, but now that i'm used to The Christ Zoidberg, i love it. [Farnsworth:] "A stench so foul, it's right off the Funk-o-meter!"

In Response to zamphir (#14820):

As opposed to your normal preferences...

...which are usually neither Neil nor Bob. ;-)

In Response to zamphir (#14820):


they like things to be short and sweet
As opposed to your normal preferences... ;-)


What, long and salty?

What could that possibly mea--oh my god.

You sick, twisted pretzel stick pervert! You're supposed to pretend that they're cigars.

In Response to FeldmanSkitzoid (#14821):

Internet message boards are not a place for long, thoughtful discussions, but rather short, vague, and confusing utterances.

I wouldn't be lying if I didn't say that I couldn't disagree less with some of what you said.

In Response to Deathalicious (#14832):

Sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar.

In Response to Deathalicious (#14833):

...huh? I've heard of double negatives, but this is ridiculous.

In Response to unFalln (#14838):

Yes, he bunged up my parser for a couple minutes.

In Response to Teledildonix (#14839):

Minutes? I got a buffer overflow, so I reported a dump, marked the sector as bad and restarted.

Just as an aside, being my usual mars-venus-obsessed-discriminating self, do males and females naturally comprehend polynegatives differently? From my experience, girls tend to be able to deal with them a hell of a lot easier than I (being a boy) can. I would start a new discussion about this, but since the faqgate, thread hijacking has been a whole lot easier and much more justifiable.

In Response to unFalln (#14840):

My (male) viewpoint: Boolean constructions seem to be easily understood: "wouldn't be lying if I didn't" was quickly resolved. Where i get slowed down is in the more vague qualitative expressions (e.g., "disagree less" took a lot of effort).

In most algebra exercises, properties of equality feel intuitive (to me), but inequalities take way more rumination.

I have no idea if this is the way other male minds work. It's generally not recommended to include me in your statistical sampling, unless the overall population is sufficiently large to alleviate the skewing.

In Response to Teledildonix (#14841):

My mind just gives up once it has to comprehend double negatives. Syntax error line 29: ')' missing before ';'.

Best I can get when I do the math and sit there for five minutes (I have to keep telling myself it's a personal challenge for the good of all mankind):

I would be lying if I'd said I couldn't agree more with some of what you'd said.

Even that doesn't fully make sense, but at least it's self-comprehensible.

In Response to Teledildonix (#14841):

Speaking as a female mind, 'couldn't disagree less' implies a specific quantity, albeit only as it applies to an individual circumstance. That is, he's incapable of any less disagreement, which means (through simple double negatives) that he could not agree more, or that he has reached a state of maximum agreement.

This is similar, of course, to the commonly-used phrase "I couldn't care less." (The usual bungling of this to read "I could care less," is, of course, so accepted as to be understood despite its inherently fallacious nature - if the speaker could care less, there is clearly some care involved, and apathy is not adequately conveyed.)

Using the algebraic equation, I tend to have little difficulty with either; then again, I'm the sort of person who finds geometric proofs enjoyable, and a similar skewing of statistical samples. I believe I still hold my high school record for 'Most Bell Curves Broken.'

In Response to Teledildonix (#14839):

he bunged up my parser

He bunged up his own.

"I wouldn't be lying if I didn't say"

That's true - if you don't say it, it can't be a lie.

The truth of the remainder of the sentence cannot be determined.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to sakuruth (#14843):

The usual bungling of this to read "I could care less," is, of course, so accepted as to be understood despite its inherently fallacious nature - if the speaker could care less, there is clearly some care involved, and apathy is not adequately conveyed.

If you listen to the stresses placed in the words "I could care less", you'll see that unlike in "I couldn't care less", where the stressed word is "couldn't", the stressed word in the newer phrase is "care", rather than "could". It is actually sarcastic, although at this point not consciously so.

In Response to albionsoft (#14846):

Boy everybody, I guess it's a good thing that I was just making up a short, vague, and confusing utterance rather than actually intending to say something that made sense.

I guess my main point was that I was pointing out that Tele*'s long postings, even if not necessarily fitting into the mold of normal Internet discussions, were still infinitely superior to, uh, short vague and confusing utterances.

In Response to Deathalicious (#14850):

Boy everybody, I guess it's a good thing that I was just making up a short, vague, and confusing utterance rather than actually intending to say something that made sense.

Boy everybody, good job I was just making up a short, vague, and meaningless joke rather than actually intending to say something that had any relevance.

*grin*

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to Deathalicious (#14850):

Parserbunger.