Professor Nonce's School for Nincompoops

perkalerk215 · Post by **perkalerk215** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:58 pm

i dont know how you are so smart. im in awe.

my question, if you can tell me about love advice maybe?......

if youre in a relationship that came from a break up. so there is a jealous and psycho ex who wants to break up the new relationship up.....now putting advances on and batting their eyelashes all miss innocent....and your significant other is saying he likes both the ex and the new significant other...and if pressured enough will fuck the ex, behind the new ones back......but then continues to act normal and say how much they like the new one....

if that makes sense, can you be so kind to tell the new one what the fuck she is supposed to do?

the wiggle baron · Post by **the wiggle baron** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:11 pm

Who invented the words "assasination" and "bump"?

paolo · Post by **paolo** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:05 pm

I believe the word 'assassination' is derived from Arabic and has the same root as the word 'hashish'

the wiggle baron · Post by **the wiggle baron** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:42 pm

Hmm, I just found a wikipedia article saying the same thing paolo, but im pretty sure Shakespeare was meant to be the man behind em!

twatty vagitis · Post by **twatty vagitis** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:20 pm

Up & Down, yep, I get that.

Explain left & right please

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:27 pm

twatty vagitis wrote:Up & Down, yep, I get that.

Explain left & right please

Left

Right

I have similar pictograms for both "arse" and "elbow" if that is of any use to you.

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:37 pm

The Wiggle Baron wrote:Who invented the words "assasination" and "bump"?

paolo wrote:I believe the word 'assassination' is derived from Arabic and has the same root as the word 'hashish'

This is also the best explanation known to me.

As for the word "bump", I would imagine it would be impossible to pin-point who created the word, as it probably rose spontaneously as an onomatopoeic representation of the sound of a gentle impact.

Further than this I would not like to venture. I would be interested in hearing any advances on this theory. Whilst interesting, many claims that Shakespeare "invented" words seem spurious to me, as his works are probably the closest representation we have to a written record of period colloquialisms. As the common people were not overly represented in contemporary print, words that were relatively commonly used by the lay-person may appear to have been "invented" by the bard, when in fact there was a strong undocumented oral tradition.

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:46 pm

perkalerk215 wrote:i dont know how you are so smart. im in awe.

my question, if you can tell me about love advice maybe?......

if youre in a relationship that came from a break up. so there is a jealous and psycho ex who wants to break up the new relationship up.....now putting advances on and batting their eyelashes all miss innocent....and your significant other is saying he likes both the ex and the new significant other...and if pressured enough will fuck the ex, behind the new ones back......but then continues to act normal and say how much they like the new one....

if that makes sense, can you be so kind to tell the new one what the fuck she is supposed to do?

As this position seems to be disagreeable to you, I would suggest some form of ultimatum. If the current 'beau' is told in no uncertain terms how 'significant other' feels about his potential fornication with the previous 'other', and continues said activities unabated, then he clearly has too little regard for for the feelings of the current 'spark'.

In polite and reasonable society, this would make said 'beau' a cad and a bounder of the highest order. Or at the very best, hopelessly be-deviled by the wiles of the fairer sex, and thus equally unreliable (if not quite as callous).

randomhed · Post by **randomhed** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:48 pm

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:33 pm

randomhed wrote:Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Before both, and almost as improbably, came the protein.

These aligned themselves over millions of years into the must humble of DNA strands.

These simple celled organisms propagated by splitting and mutating.

Some mutants developed better chances of survival, and flourished.

Mutants with multiple cells conglomerated into working partnerships developed, eventually developing centralised control.

And so on until...

Basic animals arose.

The chicken is simply the much, much, much later stage in this processes. The egg is its method of propagation.

Based on this premise, the supposed paradox of your question is therefore seen to be false, as it assumes that the form 'chicken' is eternal, and arose 'as is', which (scientists have very strong evicence to indicate) is an untruth.

perkalerk215 · Post by **perkalerk215** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:23 pm

gravious wrote:
perkalerk215 wrote:i dont know how you are so smart. im in awe.

my question, if you can tell me about love advice maybe?......

if youre in a relationship that came from a break up. so there is a jealous and psycho ex who wants to break up the new relationship up.....now putting advances on and batting their eyelashes all miss innocent....and your significant other is saying he likes both the ex and the new significant other...and if pressured enough will fuck the ex, behind the new ones back......but then continues to act normal and say how much they like the new one....

if that makes sense, can you be so kind to tell the new one what the fuck she is supposed to do?

As this position seems to be disagreeable to you, I would suggest some form of ultimatum. If the current 'beau' is told in no uncertain terms how 'significant other' feels about his potential fornication with the previous 'other', and continues said activities unabated, then he clearly has too little regard for for the feelings of the current 'spark'.

In polite and reasonable society, this would make said 'beau' a cad and a bounder of the highest order. Or at the very best, hopelessly be-deviled by the wiles of the fairer sex, and thus equally unreliable (if not quite as callous).

you are so smart. however i figured it out. lets just say this girl is freshly single and read to mingle.

twatty vagitis · Post by **twatty vagitis** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:41 am

gravious wrote:
randomhed wrote:Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Before both, and almost as improbably, came the protein.

These aligned themselves over millions of years into the must humble of DNA strands.

These simple celled organisms propagated by splitting and mutating.

Some mutants developed better chances of survival, and flourished.

Mutants with multiple cells conglomerated into working partnerships developed, eventually developing centralised control.

And so on until...

Basic animals arose.

The chicken is simply the much, much, much later stage in this processes. The egg is its method of propagation.

Based on this premise, the supposed paradox of your question is therefore seen to be false, as it assumes that the form 'chicken' is eternal, and arose 'as is', which (scientists have very strong evicence to indicate) is an untruth.

RNA came b4 DNA and they still dont know how.

and regards to my left, right question, I said 'Explain' it, pictorial evidence means nothing to me, you could have photoshoped it for all I know

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:54 am

The egg came first. A chicken could only come from an egg. But some other creature could have laid an egg with mutated offspring which was the first chicken. That's what I reckon anyhoo.

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:07 am

twatty vagitis wrote: and regards to my left, right question, I said 'Explain' it, pictorial evidence means nothing to me, you could have photoshoped it for all I know

The only way to 'explain' right and left without reference to the words or concepts themselves is by pictorial representation, assuming your own perception to be the point of reference, as they are essentially abstract and subjective.

Up and down are equally abstract and subjective, the only difference being that we have a much larger frame of reference, i.e. the Earth. Once you are outside of this frame, the concepts of up and down are again completely subjective at a personal scale, just as left and right are on the surface of the Earth.

Therefore, if you can understand up and down, left and right shouldn't be much more of a problem.

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:33 am

Mr Hyde wrote:How soon is now?

Immediately.

the wiggle baron · Post by **the wiggle baron** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:37 pm

Has Schrodingers cat croaked it yet?

gravious · Post by **gravious** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:41 pm

The Wiggle Baron wrote:Has Schrodingers cat croaked it yet?

Probably

the wiggle baron · Post by **the wiggle baron** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:48 pm

gravious wrote:
The Wiggle Baron wrote:Has Schrodingers cat croaked it yet?
Probably

nice answer

chu · Post by **chu** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:15 pm

Can one safely cook fish fingers in a toaster?

Professor Nonce's School for Nincompoops

Who is online