LlazarusLlong

valerie Inshan wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: Like remarrying. EXACTLY!!!! I didn't necessarily mean remarrying the same person, I meant getting married for a second time to anyone, after you had escaped from one life sentence. I can understand why SHE would want a handsome, loquacious, hard-drinking Welsh thespian (hmm, that sounds familiar), but why on earth did HE ever want to be associated with a one-dimensional, hyper-emotional, running-to-fat lush like her?

irihapeti wrote: i am pleased. i am also pleased that for at least the 4th time now on this forum you are being chivalrous. I think you are confusing chivalry with sarcasm. The latter being wasted on the uncomprehending.

irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance. all methods communications are symbolic. They are not necessarily logical tho That's why I described what you call "computer languages" as "symbolic logical codes". Are you getting there yet?

Coby Foden wrote: I'm sure that there will always be new (and even some not so new) people who will post their whatever guestions here in the General Forum. Derek's efforts to direct people to the "Answers" section will not stop it. Actually, on reconsideration, I have decided that Derek got it wrong. It should be relocated to one of the technical forums.

irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY! no you didnt you need to fix your blackboard duster the logic is applied on the gate (boolean) some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate I knew you'd misunderstand; I said symbolic logical codes, not symbolic logic codes. That's the trouble with you thinking you understand a language but not understanding the subtleties; you demonstrate your ignorance.

Another unhelpful response eh? (Yes, I know telling someone that it can't be done saves time and worry, except when it can be done)

valerie Inshan wrote: my Mac just BURNT (litterally!!!) at 7 AM on Saturday, with sparks, smoke and all! So I went off to the nearest Apple store and bought a brand new one I think this is conventionally described as a victory of hope over experience. Like remarrying.

irihapeti wrote: C is not a language I am pleased we agree. irihapeti wrote: They are symbolic logical codes. FIFY! irihapeti wrote: Some idiots can even chat in them FIFY!

Just imagine if Noah had been that stupid...

It isn't just computer "languages" (which aren't languages at all, of course) which allow syntactically correct formulations which generate nonsense. This is a lie. Analyse that!

irihapeti wrote: you big egg There's your answer D'Ho; chivalry is NOT dead!

Coby Foden wrote: It will be a never ending war. Coincidentally, last night I started rereading one of my favourite books. I'm awaiting the movie with even more enthusiasm than for Bladerunner 2

Quinn Lysette wrote: not canadian she told me she is in the uk im in usa we have tried several times an she says she isnt gettin any emails fron sl to marry what could be wrong and suggestions on whats happening ? She's lying? Or maybe: He's lying.

You would have got a much better response if you'd posted your request in the Wanted section.

irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: If by chivalrous, you mean treating people with compassion, kindness and courtesy, whether male or female, old or young, of any political or religious persuasion, and whatever their mother tongue, then I am extremely chivalrous. Unless they are stupid, and insist in behaving in a manner that publicly demonstrates their stupidity, as is the case with many participants in this forum, in which case they are undeserving of such gracious attention from me. on the at least 3 times you were ever gracious to another person on a forum, I thought that somebody else hacked your account q; (: I think that conclusively confirms how stupid most people are here.

bigmoe Whitfield wrote: Derek, that's not helpful. at all.... On the contrary, it's extremely helpful. It points out where the OP should have posted its question, puts a signal up to focused participants in GD that the thread is NOT actually a discussion so they don't waste any more time on it, and flushes out whingers who want to subvert LL's clear intentions to keep queries in the appropriate forums where interested experts can offer responses which don't involve unhelpful (and clumsily ugly) statements like "I'll research it abit and see what I can come up".

irihapeti wrote: yuss thats the place to gets it Hey iri, you must be pleased there's someone in the forums now with whom you should be able to communicate effectively.

Sephina Frostbite wrote: Personally I think this post is more annoying then any other post. Dont like a post, dont comment and move on. Personally, I think this post is more annoying than any other post. Don't like a post, don't comment and move on.

Anthony Rowes?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Debuggers don't point out any of those things. Your experience of what you consider debuggers is obviously of tools less sophisticated and comprehensive than those I have used. You have also missed the (designed) pun. Madelaine McMasters wrote: She realized (and it doesn't take one of the congnoscenti to do it, I can do it) that "Freelynx Lavender" consists of a first name and a last name and that last names stopped being granted years ago. On checking Feelynx's profile, Nyll further discovered a rez date over five years old, and a fairly fleshed out profile. As I pointed out, I personally have multiple alts with creation dates stretching back almost a decade, with various names and comprehensive to blank profiles which I use for a range of reasons in varying circumstances. So your "evidence" proves absolutely nothing. Indeed, Freelynx Lavender might actually be another one of the multiple identities you run - despite your (or was it Snookie or whatever its name is) initial criticisms of me for that strategy - intentionally or otherwise making a fool of yourself. PS Have you been checked for autism recently? Your inability to grasp the way in which others think seems to have increased recently. Or perhaps it's just the beginnings of early onset dementia. PPS The cognoscenti generally make sure they spell cognoscenti correctly. More EOD symptoms?

Is that an advert for Turkish Delight?

Nope.

Vivienne Daguerre wrote: I don't think they intend to have a default avatar. You will upload something you made, made by someone else, or buy an avatar that you like in world from someone else. You will then have to buy clothing made for that specific avatar from the maker of it, or designers working with it. Favourites will rise to the top, and there will be great variety. A recipe for disaster! Supply led markets didn't work for Communism, why should they work in virtual capitalism.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: The reporting of crime, or at least the liklihood of being a victim of a violent act, has actually been steadily going down in most parts of the world for centuries. FIFY! Pussycat Catnap wrote: And chicalry only ever applied to white women anyway, so I have no idea what that is like. B*O*L*L*O*C*K*S If you have never experienced it, then you have deterred it, personally, yourself.

Syo Emerald wrote: What has male chivalry to do with SL? Nothing, if you ask me. And I don't get that feminist part...are you one of those people on the Internet who cry because they think feminism is oppression of men (lol, hows that supposed to work anyway?) and that women everywhere are already equal to men and therefore should stop all activity to ensure and enforce rights for women? I think it is more that stupid women make a hyperemotional fuss about being criticised, claiming that it is because they are women, rather than because they are being stupid. And it's well-established that rights are merely privileges temporarily accorded, usually for political purposes, by the strong to the weak .