I’ll admit I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. In some circles, the dumbest people pick on me for my lack of cohesive thought and ridicule my obtuse attitude.
Hopefully, I’m not alone!
There are a few sigs floating around that I find interesting but at least mildly inexplicable. This is not to say there’s no explanation at all; sometimes I’ll see a sig that’s a quote that is unrecognizable to me. Some sigs are obscure, some vague.
Here are some that could stand some clarifying for me. If you have any of your own, please post em! We’ll get the skinny (ok, the straight dope) on them if their owners post here…
“specious”- thinksnow. I know it means “showy” or “having a false look of truth” - but what’s its purpose as a sig?
" “‘Hmm, I think I’ll take their initials and compare them to a periodic table. Yeah this is standard procedure.’ Well it WORKS, but my grandfather’s beard!” - Speaker for the Dead" -zgystardst. Interesting quote, but incomprensible to poor me.
"‘I give up,’ said Pierre de Fermat’s friend, ‘How do you keep a mathematician busy for 350 years?’? - CalMeacham. Is this like that old, old “how do you keep a moron in suspense” joke?
There’s three right there; I’m sure I’ll find more, and I’m sure you guys will, too!
Also, I hope I didn’t screw up someone’s name up there - these were written down, not copy-and-pasted.
There was also a sig that simply said “3124” once upon a time - was this Montfort, maybe? But he’s now changed that, so I can’t count that as inexplicable, since it no longer exists.
"‘I give up,’ said Pierre de Fermat’s friend, ‘How do you keep a mathematician busy for 350 years?’? - CalMeacham. Is this like that old, old “how do you keep a moron in suspense” joke?
This refers to Fermat’s Last Theorem, a notoriously tough equation that stumped the top mathematicians for 350 years. The joke is that Fermat after writing the proof showed it to his friend saying that the proof was easy and that he’d written it down in a book somewhere. The book was never found. Fermat’s Last Theorem was finally solved by Andrew Wiles in 1993. See the following links for more information on it.
I am very sorry you felt it was condescending - it was certainly not intended to be. It seemed logical that since the WallyM7 and 3124 issue had been covered a few times before that if you had missed that and did not recognize it, that perhaps you would not know who WallyM7 was.
And, since if you put “3124” into the Search function at the top of the Board you can easily find the previous threads that discuss this, it seemed logical that you had not, in fact, searched. Was I wrong in that assumption? Had you in fact searched on “3124”?
And normally, when someone asks who he was, it starts a huge thread hijack that goes down one of several paths, many of which re-open old wounds.
If you really thought I was being condescending (and I assure you, I was not), why not start a Pit thread? Please make sure you quote this post too, for fairness sake. If you don’t want to, I will start one later today then for you. Then you can show everyone how condescending and rude I am - not that most people don’t already know that.
I would bet that if I put “3124” into our much-maligned search engine, I would come up with a lot of threads, only some of which might actually be pertinent. In any event, my response post was just as condescending, if not more, and so I apologize. No, I’ve never seen a thread that mentioned “3124” (naturally, had I seen it, I would have connected the number with Wally)
Anyway, perhaps you weren’t condescending, but your post probably could have been worded more elegantly. (“If you don’t know who WallyM7 was, please avail yourself of the search function before asking.”)
I did just do a search on “3124” and set the parameter to “all dates.” The search produced 35 threads. However, bear in mind that people have used the number as a sig before, so their sigs will show up in the search results. And, of course, any use of the number would show up, whether it was a statistic, a post count, anything.
At any rate, no; I hadn’t searched on it because I thought it was such a generic term that it could mean anything. Since I had not made the connection between Wally and the number, I had no way of knowing what I was looking for. Hence, this thread.
As to why I wouldn’t start a Pit thread on it, I can think of few topics more trifling than this one. It’s not worthy of such a thread.
Well, I see why you might think that, but FYI - vBulletin does not include sigs or post counts in the Search function. The database keeps these records completely separate. To test, search on “venus” and “mars” and “Anthracite”, and you will note it doesn’t come up with my sig I’ve been using for the last few days. You can also search on your current post count and your name to confirm that post counts are not indexed either. vBulletin assembles these separate components as needed.
My response w.r.t. the Pit is merely to state that when I am condescending, there is typically no ambiguity about it. And if someone thinks I am being so, then perhaps they should ask me in a different forum why I am being so assholic. Like I said - I assumed (wrongly) that you may not have known who Wally was, that you might not have searched yet (rightly), and that any questions about Wally often seem to open old wounds (who knows?).
I dunno. You run such a board, so you would know, but I redid the search and went to the thread about Christian dogma - and the only mention of “3124” I found was in andros’ sig. Now, it’s probable he just typed that in, rather than including it as an actual sig. So in that case, never mind.
Well, it’s a good thing this thread wasn’t hijacked
Okay, you wanna know about specious, eh? Well, first things first: “specious” isn’t the entirety of the sig, and I don’t mean the stuff below the second bar, the stuff that I change on a whim. What I mean is the second line of the fixed part of my sig: “well, maybe not.”
Specious, as defined by my Word-A-Day calendar, 1991, means (IIRC):
So that together with the “well, maybe not” is sort of my thing: sounds good to me but who knows?
My posts are, almost always, off the cuff, from the hip or what have you. I type in the same manner that I speak and I tend not to always explain things exactly or concisely, though sometimes I do. My posts, I think, may sometimes seem like so much fluff, but they aren’t always. It’s sort of a backhanded compliment to myself: seems good but it’s tripe…well, perhaps there is something worthwhile in there after all.
See?
[sub]
I wanted to make sure, so I just checked Random House Websters College Edition 1991 and found
So that works, too, though I’ve been using the W-A-D def. for years.[/sub]
Well, heck. Does make more sense with the rest of the sig, doesn’t it? (I guess I thought of the second part as being its own thing.) My M-W Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) says “specious” means “1. obs: showy. 2. having deceptive attraction or allure. 3. having a false look of truth or genuineness.” So you can see my confusion.
As much as I myself hate to cover old ground, I’m given to understand that the searches are very taxing on the server. Hence, I’m reluctant to tell people to search on things. Even if they want to know about words that end in -gry or “All your base are belong to us.”
I knew of Wally, too, but the 3124 went over my head. I knew he had a lotta posts; didn’t know how many exactly. I am, alas, not altogether up on all the board threads because I am forced to be selective on what I read and post to (time constraints). Mind you, I still manage to be trivial and irrelevant in the ones I do open–I don’t mean to suggest that my limited surf time means I only hone in on (or contribute) important things. heh.
Anyway. I rarely add my sig since we were encouraged to not use them all the time. No one has fingered mine as mysterious, but in anticipation of my legions of fans wondering (who, by the way, show an admirable restraint in staying completely anonymous and silent, never letting me know of what I know must be a bulging fan club membership), I’ll report that mine refers to a bizarre muppet character in a musical number in a Muppet adaptation of Rumplestiltskin. evilbeth’s description of said weasel was so compelling, I rented the video and fell in love with it myself.
My sig lines are quotes from Blazing Saddles, one of my favorite films of all time, bad editing and all. Like Cranky, I don’t use it all the time, usually just once in a thread. The only time I used a different sig was to link to a US Army Ranger site to support the movement to keep black berets exclusively for the Rangers rather than have them issued to the whole damn Army as a cute new hat.
dantheman, I began posting at the time of Wally’s tragic demise, and I too missed the “3124” thing. I thought you handled yourself very well in the discussion, considering how you were approached!
I must agree with dantheman, that 3124 was a mystery to me until now. Not everyone remembers those details, even if they did know Wally, or know of him. Besides, a number could be anything without a reference. 42 might be meaningless to a lot of people, but Hitchhiker fans know it as the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. Gotta be in context, you know?
I rarely use my sig, but in case anyone wants to know, its just a statement my boyfriend said as he was getting ready for bed. I thought it was hilarious.
That’s one of the funniest quotes I’ve ever, ever seen!
Anyway, thank you, mnemosyne and EJ’sGirl.
Now, let’s see if I can find some more I don’t understand… I bet it’ll be easy…
Oooh, just remembered one. There was one (and darned if I can remember who had it) that said something like “We were 128” - although the number’s probably wrong. Nothing else in the sig that explained that, I don’t think.
Then there’s the whole pezpunk and broccoli! thing - they rip on each other in their sigs! What be up with that??
Those are very good points, Karen. But I am merely going with what the Mods keep telling us again and again, which is to search before you ask…regardless of how it tasks the server. So isn’t it fair to say that searching still is the preferred official method of finding information here first? And if they don’t search on “All your base”, they will start a new GQ thread about it. And you know how much the GQ Mods love to see repeated, innane threads again and again on the same topic…thus, I think Searching is still a vital thing to do.
Apparantly I was not viewed as condescending in my 3124 answer. It was my “Search to find out who Wally was” answer that was viewed as that. We don’t really need to revisit this old ground here, like you said, do we?
Don’t make side comments like that and expect I won’t be back to defend myself. “The discussion” and how he was “approached”? I made a post that was unintentionally brusque, dantheman overreacted, I overreacted back, and then we went into a merry little vBulletin discussion. And I came back to post about the damn sigs and damn searching because I wanted to make damn sure that people knew I knew what I was talking about, and not just speaking out of my ass. For some reason, that’s important to me.
Are people going to keep re-hashing this thing I thought was over this morning and coming here and pushing buttons because it is fun or something? As far as I know dantheman and I have no animosity whatsoever. Or will this be allowed to return to topic?
