[2012-Mar-02] Objective Morality

Sahan · Post by **Sahan** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:25 pm

l2liguist wrote:1f j00 C4n R34D TH15, k0mMun1c4t10n 15 K3y. Q3D.

When the world was first introduced to hacking, this was the coded language used by hackers. It took a while before it was ever deciphered. Clearly Ed has never become well versed in this ancient language during his time volunteering as forum moderator for Zach. As a forum that decides to communicate almost entirely by English, using this confusing and deeply perplexing language that can only be understood by a limited section of the forum is clearly not encouraged. We're not very impressed with non-registereds trying to show off their linguistic prowess in other languages.

Post by **Edminster** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:46 pm

No, I for realsies no fooling cannot read it. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.

Oldrac the Chitinous · Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:51 pm

For realsies, though, if you're talking about a comic and you have the occasion to say the word 'tenet' more than once, you've got bigger problems than spelling.

totally · Post by **totally** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:20 pm

For realsies, though, kids that say 'tenet' are total squares.

Felstaff · Post by **Felstaff** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:40 pm

For all intensive purposes, I could care less.

I was doing some research on hackertyper.net and it roughly translates as "If Jews can read this, communication is key.

" which, like the Chewbacca Defence, makes no sense! What is the purpose of requesting a three-dimensional representation of a grapheme? Absurdity!

Absurdity.

Sahan · Post by **Sahan** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:51 pm

I made a typo, Ed. I meant to say that there was no way you could have possibly understood, and it was only under very fortuitous circumstances that I could at all, but as Felstaff mpointed out, it is still quite nonsensical in nature.

Crunchy Pete · Post by **Crunchy Pete** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:40 pm

For realsies, though, I just wanted to start a sentence that way too

Post by **Edminster** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:45 pm

Felstaff wrote: "If Jews can read this, communication is key. "

is that really what it says because fuck that's retarded

Crunchy Pete · Post by **Crunchy Pete** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:54 pm

Edminster wrote:
Felstaff wrote: "If Jews can read this, communication is key. "
is that really what it says because fuck that's retarded

"If you can read this, communication is key. QED."

Kinda disproving his own point there

UnclGhost · Post by **UnclGhost** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:12 pm

go f a burd /thread

Dindong · Post by **Dindong** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:15 pm

what?

Crunchy Pete · Post by **Crunchy Pete** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:00 pm

This is why UnclGhost is my favorite poster except for my favorite poster and Edminster

Sceptic · Post by **Sceptic** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:59 am

Felstaff wrote:For all intensive purposes, I could care less.

Presumably for all intents and purposes, too

Sahan · Post by **Sahan** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:24 am

No, I believe you are mistaken. Felstaff can not speak for extensive purposes, he can only speak about what he knows.

Kaharz · Post by **Kaharz** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:08 pm

He means that he could care less really strongly, but only during the short period of time he was posting. But he is lazy, so he doesn't care less.

SMBC Comics Forum

[2012-Mar-02] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality

Re: [2012-Mar-2] Objective Morality