Text 877, 343 rader
Skriven 2005-01-09 23:46:28 av Greg Sears (1:153/307)
     Kommentar till en text av George Pope
Ärende: Re: Merry Saturn-mas!
=============================
Funny on 27-Dec-2004 10:52

 -=[George Pope wrote IN a message to ALL]=-

 GP> More paganesque celebratories, with a song:

  G-day George Pope,

You are a celebratory in your own lifetime!! #[;-)]

Of course I never wanted to be a Lumberjack; I wanted to be a

           * * *  P R O G R A M M E R  * * *

...Writing line after line as they compile within the mighty CPU of the
CRAY-1; the giant CDC 7600, the 370, the mighty 68040...with my pocket
protector in my side pocket...we'd sing...sing...sing....

Oh, I'm a programmer and I'm O.K.
I work all night and I sleep all day

(chorus)  He's a programmer and he's O.K.
          He works all night and he sleeps all day

I type in code, I read my dumps, I take them to the lavatory,
On Wednesdays I finish debugging and write thirteen lines of C

(chorus)  He types in code, he prints his dumps, he takes them to the
             lavatory,
          On Wednesdays he finishes debugging and writes thirteen lines
             of C

          He's a programmer and he's O.K.
          He works all night and he sleeps all day

I type in code, I branch and jump, I press the reset button
I write modules in COBOL that don't do nothin'

(chorus)  He types in code, he branches and jumps, he presses the
            reset button
          He writes modules in COBOL that don't do nothin'!?!  Yeecch!

          He's a programmer and he's O.K.
          He works all night and he sleeps all day

I type in code, I spill tape reels, punchcards, and cola
I wish I'd been an ME, just like my dear mama!

(chorus)  He types in code, he spills tape reels, punchcards,
             and...COLA!?!
          <various outraged and incoherent deprecatory mumblings>

(chorus)  He's a programmer and he's O.K.
          He works all night and he sleeps all day....


> OBJoke for our Moderator and all-round friend/servant

              The USENET Guide to Power Posting

1.   Conspiracies abound:  If everyone's against you, the reason
   can't *possibly* be that you're a F***head.  There's obviously
   a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire
   net a favor by exposing it.  Be sure to mention the CIA, FBI
   Oliver North and the Army as co-conspirators.

2.   Lawsuit threats:  This is the reverse of Rule #1.  Threatening a
   lawsuit is always considered to be in good form.  "By saying that
   I've posted to the wrong group, Charlie has libeled me, slandered
   me, and sodomized me.  See you in court, Charlie."

3.   Force them to document their claims:  Even if Jane Jones
   states outright that she has menstrual cramps, you should demand
   documentation.  If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Jane's
   cramps, then Jane's obviously lying.

4.   Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca
   of USENET.  You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three
   times per article.  Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseam",
   "vini, vidi, vici", "E Pluribus Unum" and "fetuccini alfredo".

5.   Tell 'em how smart you are:  Why use intelligent arguments to
   convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them?
   State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America.
   Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school.
   "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell
   the word 'premeiotic' ".

6.   Be an armchair psychologist:  You're a smart person.  You've heard
   of Freud.  You took a psychology course in college.  Clearly, you're
   qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent.  "Polly Purebread, by
   using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case
   of penis envy."

7.   Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American
   citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed
   by the 37th Amendment, I think).  Anyone who tries to limit your
   cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a Communist, a
   fascist, or both.

8.   Doubt their existence:  You've never actually seen your opponent,
   have you?  And since you're the center of the universe, you should
   have seen them by now, shouldn't you?  Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST!
   Call'em an AI project, to really piss them off.

9.   Laugh at whatever they write. A good "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
   should intimidate just about anyone.

10.  When in doubt, insult:  If you forget the other rules, remember
   this one.  At some point during your wonderful career on USENET
   you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is
   better than you.  This person will expose your lies, tear apart your
   arguments, make you look generally like a bozo.  At this point,
   there's only one thing to do:  insult the dirtbag!!!  "Oh yeah?
   Well, you do strange things with vegetables."

11.  And, if all else fails, remember that you can always fall back on
   the favorite defense of Soc.women:  "Who cares what YOU think -- this
   is Soc.WOMEN!".  Add "DAMMIT!" for effect.

12.  Be sure to have a cute signature that proclaims that you are a man
   basher.  No one will respect you unless it's clear that you hate men.

13.  Call'em a "Pman" if you can't think of anything.  Tell the
   linguists to stuff it -- YOU know a diminutive when you see it.

14.  Make things up about your opponent:  It's important to make your
   lies sound true.  Preface your argument with the word "clearly."
   "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

15.  Cross-post your article:  Everyone on the net is just waiting for
   the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal.  From
   rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their breaths
   until your next flame.  Therefore, post everywhere.

16.  Use the smiley to your advantage.  You can call anyone just about
   anything as long as you include the smiley.  On really nasty attacks
   add "No flames, please".  When they bitch, call them an ass for not
   being able to recognize sarcasm when they see it.

17.  Threaten to destroy Soc.men if your opponent refuses to give up.
   This at least gives you an appearance of power, even if nobody on
   the net gives a damn about what goes on in soc.men.

18.  Should you post something exceedingly stupid and later regret it,
   don't worry.  You needn't cancel the article.  That only shows what a
   wimp you really are.  Deny that you ever sent it.  "It must be a
   forgery!"  (Yea, that's the ticket, it's a forgery!)  "Someone broke
   into my account and sent it!"  "It's that damn backbone cabal out to
   get me!"  Take your pick, they've all been used before.

19.  A really cheap shot is to call you opponent a "fascists". By
   itself, it really does nothing.  But, when used often, and in enough
   articles, it can make you a net-legend.

20.  And finally, never edit your newsgroup line when following up
   (unless you're expanding it).  This drives 'em wild.  Be sure to
   follow up as many articles as possible, even if you have nothing to
   say.  The important thing is to get "exposure" so that you can be
   called a "regular" in your pet newsgroup.  Never change the ">"
   symbol when following up; that's for wimps.  Dump a hundred lines of
   "INEWS FODDER" in every article.

Now that you know the ways to properly post on USENET, let's try
an example:

In article <1452@sab.ck>, Bill Netter writes:
> Dear Sally,

I object to your use of the word "dear".  It shows you are a
condescending, sexist Pman.  Also, the submissive tone you use shows
that you like to be tied down and flagellated with licorice whips.

> While I found your article "The Effect of Lint on Western Thought"
> to be extremely thought-provoking,

"Thought-provoking"?  I had no idea you could think, you rotting piece
of swamp slime.  :-) (No flames, please)

>                                      it really shouldn't have been
> posted in Soc.women.

What?  Are you questioning my judgment?  I'll have you know that I'm
a member of the super-high-IQ society Menstruate.  I got an 800 on my
PMS exam.  Besides, what does a Pman like yourself know of such things.
This is Soc.WOMEN, DAMMIT!

Your attempts constitute nothing less than censorship.  There is a
conspiracy against me.  You, Colin, Charlie and the backbone cabal have
been constantly harassing me by email.  This was an ad hominem attack!
If this doesn't stop at once, I'll crosspost a thousand articles to
soc.men.

> Perhaps you should have posted it in misc.misc.

It is my right, as granted in the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the
Bible and the Quran, to post where ever I want to.  Or don't you
believe in those documents, you damn fascist?  Perhaps if you didn't
spend so much time sacrificing virgins and infants to Satan, you would
have realized this.

>                                                   Your article would
> be much more appropriate there.

Can you document this?  I will only accept documents notarized by my
attorney, and signed by you in your blood.  Besides, you don't really
exist anyway, you Pseudo, you.

> If I can be of any help in the future, just drop me a line.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

> Bill.

Sally Sourpuss

"If we can send one man to the moon, why can't we send them all?"

Soc.women Women WOMEN, DAMMIT!


> OBJoke: for Mr. <+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope")

Survey of proof techniques

This survey was written by Dana Angluin.  Not really sure where it came
from.

Proof by example:
  The author gives only the case n=2 and suggests that it contains most
  of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation:
  'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving:
  Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation:
  Best done with access to at least four alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion:
  An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by omission:
  'The reader may easily supply the details.'
  'The other 253 cases are analogous.'
  '...'

Proof by obfuscation:
  A long plotless sequence of true and\or meaningless syntactically
  related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:
  The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a
  theorem from the literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding:
  How could three different government agencies be wrong?

Proof by eminent authority:
  'I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP-complete.'

Proof by personal communication:
  'Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp,
  personal commmunication].

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem:
  'To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is
  decidable, we reduce it to the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:
  The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a
  privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society,
  1883.

Proof by importance:
  A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
  question.

Proof by accumulated evidence:
  Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology:
  The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless.
  Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference:
  In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in
  reference B,which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference
                                                                    
Wilde's, brain, then you obviously can't tell, say, what color it is.

But some people didn't get the joke, and decided to investigate this
principle further. They would gather and sit around all day, drinking
beer and performing "Gedankesexperimenten," or "Thank God we're
theoretical physicists so we don't have to get our hands dirty with
particle accelerators and other heavy machinery." The most famous of
these is Schroedinger's Cat, where several physicists kidnap Erwin
Schroedinger's cat Fluffy and lock it up in a box, along with a
radioactive source such as Cheez Doodles. Then they walk around with
concerned expressions on their faces, commenting about how they don't
know what's going on inside the box. This goes on until the cleaning
lady discovers the box, opens it and tells the physicists whether the
cat is dead, or whether it has mutated into a man-eating flea the size
of Norway.

The point of this experiment is to show that uncertainty at the quantum
level can be detected in the macroscopic world and produce widespread
anxiety and paranoia. It also explains why paper clips just lie there
while you look at them, but as soon as you turn your back, they run
away, giggling wildly, and transform themselves into coat hangers.

Another famous researcher is Richard Feynman, who invented Feynman
diagrams, which are bunches of squiggly lines with greek letters next to
them. The way they were discovered was, one day, Hans Bethe came in to
Feynman's office to say that some of the guys down in particle research
were having a jam session down by the cyclotron, and would Richard like
to come over and bring his bongos? Feynman was out, at the time,
cracking a safe or something, so Bethe tried to leave him a note. On the
desk, he found one of Feynman's daugter's kindergarten drawings. Bethe
couldn't make head or tail of it, and figured that if even he couldn't
understand it, then it must be something Terribly Clever, and promptly
called it a Feynman diagram.

This was a major scientific breakthrough, and ever since, proud parents
have been hanging their children's Feynman diagrams on refrigerators
with little muon-shaped magnets, confident that their Little Darlings
are developing important scientific theories every day, because they
are, after all, Gifted Children.



Salutations from --Christchurch-+
  ICE-man in      /\            |          \ | /   Mountains, Sunshine
 New Zealand     /  \/\         |  /\     -- O --   Forestry, Farming
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^/      \!!ii,,..@-/==\---^-^-^-^-^ Beaches and Surfing


... v0.46: MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

--- EzyBlueWave V2.01b005 00F90260
 * Origin: Milky Way, Langley, BC [604] 532-4367 (1:153/307)