Eagle Time
IRC highlights! - Printable Version

+- Eagle Time (https://eagle-time.org)
+-- Forum: Chat (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Chatter (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IRC highlights! (/showthread.php?tid=117)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-16-2016

wheat Wrote:wheat> 69 is called 69 because the individual digits represent bodies, where the bulky part of the body where sex parts are is the o and the dingle up top is the mouth.
<wheat> thanks for listening.
Wait. I contest that. The dingle parts are the dingle parts and the bulky parts are the heads ala stick figures.

How can we communicate if we can't agree on these basic principles?


RE: IRC highlights! - a52 - 04-16-2016

(04-16-2016, 05:04 AM)btp Wrote: »Wait. I contest that. The dingle parts are the dingle parts and the bulky parts are the heads ala stick figures.

That's what I thought. But hey, Wheat's the expert here.


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-16-2016

What a silly thing to argue about. Let's all be mature and agree to disagree.

Show Content



RE: IRC highlights! - ICan'tGiveCredit - 04-16-2016

oooooooooo


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-16-2016

(04-16-2016, 08:53 AM)Wheat Wrote: »how would it even make sense as the numeric dingle parts corresponding to human dingle parts?? Not every 69 involves 2 partners with dinglers! it would be a 6o or o9 in some cases, or even a oo!

"Dingle parts" includes legs! In your version, everyone's making out in a wheelchair.

And about that alluring frogman you tossed up there (without a NSFW tag I might add!) You're right that it doesn't look human but the MOMENT those legs become a solid line we are dealing with a stick-figure, and in stick figures the circle is the head!

Fact Seagull Modern stick figures first gained popularity between the 1964 and 1972 summer Olympics.

You know what happened between 1964 and 1972? 1969


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-16-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-16-2016

Wheat, you sexual beast, you have fallen into my trap!

Despite your knowledge of geologic erogenous zones, you have giftwrapped and delivered the exact evidence needed to prove that the 6 and 9's are indeed stick figure positions and you have carelessly discarded the one weapon you held for your cause.

For you see, there was a fundamental flaw in my proclamation that the circles were the heads and the dangly bits were the legs:

6 legs do not bend that way 9

However, in your defense of the circle-torso theorem you stated:
Wheat Wrote:the lower half of at least one person is often bendy or curled so as to give space

In order to give that space, the legs must bend back towards the person which reveals that the furthest most point of the "6" or "9" is not the base of the body, but the bent KNEES of an enraptured lover.

In your interpretation of 69 the line of the "head" would be reaching for the succulent knees of their partner. While I do hate to disappoint, some cursory research reveals that knees, while enticing, are not the face bound goal of our position.

But what about the proof of the "circle-parts-are-heads" theory? I direct you to the very evidence you just presented:
Show Content

In your own representation, where is the mouth?

Now...where does that line up in our contentious number?

69

It lines up with the juncture of the base of the circle and the start of the dangle bit.

And what could be there I wonder? We have seen this before. Humanity has seen this before.

The Lascaux Birdman

A 17,000 year old painting of a man with an EAGLE'S HEAD and PROMINENT JUNK protruding from the juncture of circle and line.

In number "69", the circle parts are the head and the dingly parts are the bent legs, with the junk just at the base of the circle.

deathnote.gif


RE: IRC highlights! - ICan'tGiveCredit - 04-17-2016

it's actually neither of those and both the 6 and the 9 are yo-yos. a simple, innocent, non-sexual metaphor that you have forever sullied with your talk of ancient heads and dingle-dongles


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-17-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-17-2016

I agree.


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-17-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-17-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - Schazer - 04-20-2016

Science chat with Sanzh Schaz and Sfou:
Show Content



RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-20-2016

Schazer Wrote:<schazer> wherein translation is where you feed a strand of mRNA (butt or face) through a ribosome (photocopier) which uses those instructions to join up a specific chain of amino acids (2 dimensional rendition of butt or face) which then becomes folded into a protein (paper airplane)
Oh my god you have just revolutionized the way I teach translation from now on.


RE: IRC highlights! - Schazer - 04-20-2016

ur welcome


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-20-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - Schazer - 04-20-2016

The take-away is that "correct object photocopied in the right way" (non-garbled DNA sequence, transcripted/copied into a non-garbage mRNA sequence) when folded correctly, might result in an interesting/cohesive pattern on the wing surface (correctly-"shaped" regions of the protein so it does the thing it was designed to do) when the resulting sheet of paper (polypeptide) is folded into a plane (protein).

A garbage DNA sequence (haphazard ass on xerox), conversely, could still produce a polypeptide (printout), but folding it up just results in a paper airplane that doesn't even look cool and rubs off photocopier ink onto your fingers when you handle it.


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-20-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - Schazer - 04-20-2016

Well, ribosomes (the cellular machine that, via translation, makes a tangible product out of lines of code) produce a polypeptide according to the mRNA sequence that got fed through them.

The polypeptide is a chain of amino acids, and amino acids are just molecules. Different points in the chain have different dangly bits, different regions that repel or attract and generally restrict the polypeptide from scrunching up however the fuck it pleases.

The specific chemical/atomic/molecular properties of the polypeptide chain (similar properties that cause water and oil to not mix unless you add soap) will dictate how it folds up, kind of like how:
[Image: cup_crease.jpg]
are the exact lines you fold in a sheet of paper to produce a cup which Actually Holds Real Water. Put seven creases in different positions on the paper and you're either going to get something Less Good At Holding Water, something which Can't Hold Water For Shit, or maybe even something That Does Something Really Good That Isn't Holding Water*.

To distort the metaphor somewhat for the sake of scientific clarity, imagine photocopying something 3-dimensional (butt, face, artfully arranged collection of office stationery) then folding along the lines on the resulting 2-dimensional printout. Most of the time, according to your rules (in the photocopier metaphor, artistic license and consistent decisions about what constitutes a "fold line"; in gene expression, chemical/physical properties like activation energy/hydrophilic or -phobic regions), you're just going to get crumpled-up bullshit. Photocopy a cup and you're not going to get a piece of paper that intuitively folds into a cup.


*Obviously, in origami, the order in which you make the creases is just as important - this applies somewhat to proteins too; many "organelles" in the cell (chiefly the golgi bodies, and the rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulums) act as micro-"climates" that make certain amino acids in the chain more or less disposed to repel/attract, or certain regions to end up on the "inside" or "outside" of the resulting molecule.


RE: IRC highlights! - NonAnalogue - 04-20-2016

I am not nearly competent enough in science to be able to comment on this, but I will say that this sort of thing makes me super-glad I joined these forums.


RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-20-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - Plaid - 04-21-2016

Thats certainly a new look for Daisy


RE: IRC highlights! - btp - 04-22-2016

CardsAgainstHawkspace Wrote:<Granola> I assumed mine was an std. instead it's a lizard. learn something new every day

Show Content



RE: IRC highlights! - OTTO - 04-24-2016

You must be registered to view this content.


RE: IRC highlights! - Dragon Fogel - 04-24-2016

<DragonFogel> Bob, am I destroying your grasp of language?
<btp__> You are destroying several things
<btp__> like my tolerance for space consortiums