Moon Called's Random Banter #86 of Sexy Anime Boys and Fangirl Squeals

[Cyrano]

A more be-quiet question would be MY LORD MY BRAIN IT IS AFIRE QUITE SO OLD CHAP EH WOT WOT?

Followed by a blast from my good friend Remy.

EDIT: ^ No, to TURN ME ON.

[Sean92k]

EDIT: ^ No, to TURN ME ON.

Finally. Some action

[The Great Skenardo]

But You'll note that that particular question leads only to further questions such as "Would you please not shout at me?"

Ultimately, it's not a terribly fruitful line of thought.

EDIT:^^ Dude, you're friends with Gambit? You gain +7 awesome points.

[Mr. Moon]

Well, perhaps not, but would a simple answer be so satisfying? When you contemplate the bevy of interesting lines of thought that could spring from just the simple question itself...well, it becomes rather mundane to be satisfied with a plain answer when there may not even be one.

That's fine. I like mundane.

I think you're just covering the fact that you screwed up and didn't have time to edit it out.

@Dee and Sean: o.o *goes to wash brain* I heard that you once looked out a window and got fined for mooning.

[Cyrano]

^^^Geeze! Look at the claws on that thing! Get away from Becky, you sick twisted fiend!
^^ I have so many awesome points that Wizard of the Coast, White Wolf, and the entire collected mind force of Ian Lingston, Steve Jackson and Einstein cannot think up any more Awesome Point Powers to give me. But thank you.
BTW, want a reference? Remy's looking for a sidekick. Don't be shocked if he uses you as a portable missile, though.
^, Honey, I can do the brainwashing FOR you.

In other news,
@ Norwegians: Why are there so many of you in the Playground?
Or is it Netherlanders? I get those mixed up when I read.

[Sean92k]

@Dee and Sean: o.o *goes to wash brain*

But you cant stop thinking about it I hear they moddeled chewbacca after you

[The Great Skenardo]

That's fine. I like mundane.

I think you're just covering the fact that you screwed up and didn't have time to edit it out.

@Dee and Sean: o.o *goes to wash brain* I heard that you once looked out a window and got fined for mooning.

Emphasis added. I think that wins the award for most blatantly-false thing I've heard so far today.

Seek and ye shall find, MC. It may be that there are currents running deeper than the eye sees here.
Y'know. HTML and all that.

[Cyrano]

I'm pretty sure I wrote I like radishes somewhere... THAT is more false. See, Moon LOVES mundane. She idolizes it. Mundane is her chocolate cake, her tiramisu, her morning coffee.
She is also a masochist.

[The Great Skenardo]

I'm pretty sure I wrote I like radishes somewhere... THAT is more false. See, Moon LOVES mundane. She idolizes it. Mundane is her chocolate cake, her tiramisu, her morning coffee.
She is also a masochist.

...Which brings up an interesting idea; what can make something more or less false? You'd probably accept "This forum is actually a literal cheeseburger" as being more false than "Actually, Krakow is the capitol of Poland."
But what should make it so?
Clearly we need some sort of standardized metric.

[Cyrano]

Sken: Interesting. However, at some point, there is a limit. For certain words, for example. One thing cannot me "more" unique or "more" perfect. Perfect and unique are absolutes. So, in a way, is falsity. If it is not true, it is either false or unproven. Unproven can always be proven, false or true. So, really, saying this forum is a literal Krakow or that my cheeseburger is the capital of Poland are both equally false.

[Sean92k]

...Which brings up an interesting idea; what can make something more or less false? You'd probably accept "This forum is actually a literal cheeseburger" as being more false than "Actually, Krakow is the capitol of Poland."
But what should make it so?
Clearly we need some sort of standardized metric.

I suggest the measurements be named 'Girs' because who doesn't love Gir

[Cyrano]

Speaking of measurements, let's turn Moon Calleds Random Banter into The Hijacked Thread of Science.
We will assign measurements to EVERYTHING.

Beauty will be defined in millihelens. a face worth one Helen can launch a thousand ships. A millihelen launches one ship. Most people are defined in fractions of a millihelen.
Any more?

[Mr. Moon]

Emphasis added. I think that wins the award for most blatantly-false thing I've heard so far today.

Seek and ye shall find, MC. It may be that there are currents running deeper than the eye sees here.
Y'know. HTML and all that.

... Okay, I like mundane answers. That better?

Clearly we need some sort of standardized metric.

Dude, what are you ON?

Speaking of measurements, let's turn Moon Calleds Random Banter into The Hijacked Thread of Science.

Just try it.

Lucas-sama claims to have had Jaba the Hut inspired by you.

[Cyrano]

He is on Science, moon. He is lost to you. Even if you had FTL travel, you'd never get there in time! Science is too far! Just leave, Moon. Forget him. Come back to us, the real people who care about you!

[Sean92k]

Dude, what are you ON?

PotNo more insults?

[The Great Skenardo]

Sken: Interesting. However, at some point, there is a limit. For certain words, for example. One thing cannot me "more" unique or "more" perfect. Perfect and unique are absolutes. So, in a way, is falsity. If it is not true, it is either false or unproven. Unproven can always be proven, false or true. So, really, saying this forum is a literal Krakow or that my cheeseburger is the capital of Poland are both equally false.

Then I suppose the award for most blatantly-false thing I've heard so far today either must go to everyone or to no one.

Is it the case that everything can be proven false or true?

Consider the statement "The next thing I say will be false."
And then you never speak again. What value does the statement have, then?

Dude, what are you ON?

Itself a masterfully-intricate question! I applaud you with the sound of one hand clapping.

[Cyrano]

Try it, my dear Moon?
Why.....
WE ALREADY HAVE!
*evil laughter*

Now let's define wood. I suggest the pint.

[Mr. Moon]

I edited one in. However, I'm sure another can work. You're face looks like a baboon's rear after he takes a dump.

He is on Science, moon. He is lost to you. Even if you had FTL travel, you'd never get there in time! Science is too far! Just leave, Moon. Forget him. Come back to us, the real people who care about you!

You guys sure have funny ways to show compasion.

Try it, my dear Moon?
Why.....
WE ALREADY HAVE!
*evil laughter*

... Riiight.

[Sean92k]

Yup we do.
It takes two trains and a bus to get on your good side

[Cyrano]

Try it, my dear Moon?
Why.....
WE ALREADY HAVE!
*evil laughter*

Now let's define wood. I suggest the pint.

SKEN: Warning! Logic ahead!
"Then I suppose the award for most blatantly-false thing I've heard so far today either must go to everyone or to no one."

No it doesn't. The most blatantly false thing you've ever heard either is, or isn't, X. Whether it is or isn't X does not mean, A, B, C, D, E, etc. are all false or true. The statement "that must be the most..." is either true or false. The statement it is directed at is either true or false. Other statements don't enter into it.

"Is it the case that everything can be proven false or true?"
It may not be PROVEN, but it still exists. You can say "there is a smaller particle than the Atom" in 1700. Just because neither atoms, nor you, would have existed then, doesn't mean the universe cares.

"Consider the statement "The next thing I say will be false."
And then you never speak again. What value does the statement have, then?"
That's actually a toughy. By MY personal paradigm (which is what I'm arguing, anyway) that statement has falsity, because you never speak again. The implication "I will say something else" renders the statement untrue.

[The Great Skenardo]

SKEN: Warning! Logic ahead!
"Then I suppose the award for most blatantly-false thing I've heard so far today either must go to everyone or to no one."

No it doesn't. The most blatantly false thing you've ever heard either is, or isn't, X. Whether it is or isn't X does not mean, A, B, C, D, E, etc. are all false or true. The statement "that must be the most..." is either true or false. The statement it is directed at is either true or false. Other statements don't enter into it.

This point was unrelated to True or False; more like "Well, crap. If something is equally wrong as any other wrong statement, then "Most wrong" has no meaning if more than one wrong thing is said.

"Is it the case that everything can be proven false or true?"
It may not be PROVEN, but it still exists. You can say "there is a smaller particle than the Atom" in 1700. Just because neither atoms, nor you, would have existed then, doesn't mean the universe cares.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you saying that any given statement is true or false?

"Consider the statement "The next thing I say will be false."
And then you never speak again. What value does the statement have, then?"
That's actually a toughy. By MY personal paradigm (which is what I'm arguing, anyway) that statement has falsity, because you never speak again. The implication "I will say something else" renders the statement untrue.

Then suppose you make the statement. Until you speak again, what value does the statement have? Its value depends on an event in the future that may not necessarily come to pass.

[Mr. Moon]

Itself a masterfully-intricate question! I applaud you with the sound of one hand clapping.

... Yeah. The men in the white jackets will becoming with your special jacket, and taking you back to your cell soon.

You smell funny![/Captain Jack Sparrow]

[The Great Skenardo]

... Yeah. The men in the white jackets will becoming with your special jacket, and taking you back to your cell soon.

Well, possibly. I feel confident, however, that a few minutes of honest heartfelt discourse will let them see that I'm no threat.
Note: Origami doesn't work with people. The joints are in all the wrong places, and if you don't have a delicate touch it just gets messy.

[Cyrano]

This point was unrelated to True or False; more like "Well, crap. If something is equally wrong as any other wrong statement, then "Most wrong" has no meaning if more than one wrong thing is said. Sorry, I missed that. In that case, what I would say is that the falseness doesn't vary. Blatancy does. Something can be less apparant than a yellow and red glow in the dark jester at nighttime, and not be inconspicuous, so the level of blatancy can increase. The falseness remains the same. Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you saying that any given statement is true or false? Any given statement that can be rendered either true or false is completely one or the other. To me, anyway.



Then suppose you make the statement. Until you speak again, what value does the statement have? Its value depends on an event in the future that may not necessarily come to pass.I already said. That statement is false. That is what value it has. I said that according to my paradigm, the implication that you will say something that never is said means the statement is entirely false.

I understand this may be hard to refute, format-wise, so for your viewing displeasure I am putting them here in quotation marks.

"Sorry, I missed that. In that case, what I would say is that the falseness doesn't vary. Blatancy does. Something can be less apparant than a yellow and red glow in the dark jester at nighttime, and not be inconspicuous, so the level of blatancy can increase. The falseness remains the same. Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about."

"Any given statement that can be rendered either true or false is completely one or the other. To me, anyway."

"I already said. That statement is false. That is what value it has. I said that according to my paradigm, the implication that you will say something that never is said means the statement is entirely false."

Still think it's hard to refute when you don't know what my statements are refuting? So do I! Unfortunately, no multiquote. Sorry.

Mooncalled: NO ONE is becoming in white jackets.

[Sean92k]

... Yeah. The men in the white jackets will becoming with your special jacket, and taking you back to your cell soon.

Their me fwends Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

[Cyrano]

Yur muh postr cheld fur bad speling.
Get it? POSTER child? hahahahahahah!
Yeah, anyways, it's they're.

[Mr. Moon]

Mooncalled: NO ONE is becoming in white jackets.

Well, not white lab coats. But I have a nice little white jacket that looks good on me. So :P.

Shush, I made a typo, Mr. Srsly.



You are a tasteless moron.

[SDF]

I wouldn't say completely tasteless... could use more salt though.

[Cyrano]

^^First of all, a typo is something to be laughed at. A constant misspelling is something to be corrected. And a purposeful misspelling like srsly is something to completely and utterly ignore.

I may be a tasteless moron, but you, madam, are ugly. And I shall regain the use of my taste buds in the morning.

^ Salt kills.

[The Great Skenardo]

I understand this may be hard to refute, format-wise, so for your viewing displeasure I am putting them here in quotation marks.

Spoiler

Show

"Sorry, I missed that. In that case, what I would say is that the falseness doesn't vary. Blatancy does. Something can be less apparant than a yellow and red glow in the dark jester at nighttime, and not be inconspicuous, so the level of blatancy can increase. The falseness remains the same. Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about."

"Any given statement that can be rendered either true or false is completely one or the other. To me, anyway."

"I already said. That statement is false. That is what value it has. I said that according to my paradigm, the implication that you will say something that never is said means the statement is entirely false."

Point the first: Okay.

Point the Second: What determines whether something can be rendered true or false? Seems to me the only proof of that is if you actually have. If that's the case, doesn't that make your statement tautological?

3-pointer: But what if there's uncertainty about whether or not you will say anything? One second after it's been said, it is not known whether anything else will be said, or, if it is, what it will be.