Hey, I’m moving everything over to a new server. Things might look a little strange until it’s done.
Update - 5/28/07, 1PM -
Still working on getting things set up. Discussion Forum is back up.
705 Responses to “New server”
Pages: « 1 … 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 … 36 » Show All
-
521 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pm - Rowdier Wench Says:
@ JB - My carrier pigeons have been a bit tired recently! I’ll pop round to the shop and pick up some of that GMS and they’ll be fixed up in no time!! :)))
.
Doh! I didn’t get a chance to vote! Good that he still got elected. I’m proud!!! Sorry ۞, that I didn’t get a chance to vote… -
522 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm - Professor B♥♥ty Says:
No, ROwdier, he didn’t some other tosser beat him to it, we are re-voting for him for this month though.
I have to go to bed - early start and 12 hour shift tomorrow - bleurgh!
Have a good one all, give me plenty to read over breakfast :D -
523 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm - Jean Bart Says:
@Rowdier Wench Jun 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pm “Doh! I didn’t get a chance to vote! Good that he still got elected. I’m proud!!! Sorry ۞, that I didn’t get a chance to vote…”
.
RW, where are your reading glasses? PIGEON got elected, not our ۞!
.
RAmen again to attent readers, a rare species on June sundays. -
524 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm - Jean Bart Says:
Ooops!
Fixed.
-
525 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm - Jean Bart Says:
Aaargh, the ۞ sign doesn’t show on my screen in my reply. Where’s that carrier pigeon?
-
526 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm - Jean Bart Says:
Ooooh, it’s the italics that made it disappear…
-
527 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm - Jean Bart Says:
Off to some MPFC now: still hours to go with those DVD’s!
.
RAmen to attent and less attent readers! -
528 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm - Wench Nikkiee Says:
First it was the Midgit in the cage, then the cat in the box and now all of the most dedicated Pastafarians on the New Server thread with NO VISIBLE RECENT COMMENTS!
-
529 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm - ۞ Says:
@Professor B♥♥ty Jun 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Don’t believe those Rice Crispie bastards. They talk a lot of shit. -
530 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm - Wench Beth Says:
That’s for sure, ۞. Just this morning the Rice Crispies told me that the “RECENT COMMENTS” were never coming back. I REFUSE TO BELIEVE!!! IT’S NOT TRUE!!!
-
531 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm - Rowdier Wench Says:
@ JB - Sorry - yes I am a less attentive reader today! Speed reading…oops. OK I will then get a chance to vote for ۞ which is fantastic! Enjoy MPFC!!!!
-
532 - June 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm - bill Says:
@ Bobby and everyone,
Haven’t been around for a while, but I was interested in Bobby’s post“4)Individual Catch Pages. Once they click the ad, they’ll be brought to a page on the FSM site which will expand on the idea presented in the ad and slowly make the argument that they should convert to Pastafarianism. I need help with this.”
My question is about the goal here. Do we present the argument that they should convert to Pastafarianism because we actually want them to convert or is it to confuse them and bring them into an argumentative discussion, or to get more hits on the page, bring in more people in general or ???
The reason I ask is because it seems unlikely that they would actually convert, or do we records of Joh Wits and the like actually converting?P.S. Good to see you guys.
-
533 - June 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm - Jean Bart Says:
@bill Jun 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm “” Do we present the argument that they should convert to Pastafarianism because we actually want them to convert or is it to confuse them and bring them into an argumentative discussion, or to get more hits on the page, bring in more people in general or ???
The reason I ask is because it seems unlikely that they would actually convert, or do we records of Joh Wits and the like actually converting?”
.
There has been some debate about this, but personally I don’t believe in converting into Pastafarianism, but rather in offering “expression space” to people who don’t feel at ease with religion (theirs or someone else’s).
.
Good to have you back too. -
534 - June 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm - DutchPastaGuy Says:
@Bill
Welcome back!
.
warningh to others: physicists nerd post heading your way, scroll now
.
You remember the discussion about relativity we had on the Ken Miller thread? Just to give you an update: the answer is Lorentz transformations! These govern how to determine the net velocity, in a very different way of course than the simple vector addition of classical mechanics. Unfortunately, according to the wikipedia article on it, the velocity is not the only thing anymore, the distance also becomes a factor. In case you’re interested:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation -
535 - June 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm - Jean Bart Says:
@DutchPastaGuy Jun 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm“You remember the discussion about relativity we had on the Ken Miller thread? Just to give you an update: the answer is Lorentz transformations! These govern how to determine the net velocity, in a very different way of course than the simple vector addition of classical mechanics. Unfortunately, according to the wikipedia article on it, the velocity is not the only thing anymore, the distance also becomes a factor.”
.
Now, if that isn’t going to answer Bill’s question about converting! -
536 - June 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm - Rowdier Wench Says:
@ Bill - I am very glad to see your post!! Welcome back! I personally like the idea of encouraging people to come here and express their ideas - like JB said. “Converting” people sounds a bit too much like mainstream religion, which none of us like.
-
537 - June 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm - ۞ Says:
Ok, Beth, Booty we need to sit in a circle, hold hands and repeat:
.
The crispies aren’t talking to us, about us or to each other they are simply going snap crackle pop we can’t hear words in what they’re saying.
.
That’ll show the little rice based bastards what for!
.
They’re just saying that recent comments isn’t coming back to tease you. They have a very warped sense of humour. -
538 - June 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm - bill Says:
@DPG
Nerd aleat:
I thought the Lorentz transformation were just an ad hoc way of patching up the results of the michaelson/morley experiments. How else can you account for the speed of light rushing towards an object as being the same as the speed of light running away? We wouldn’t hold for that in baseball.
But there is a reason to hold distance as part of the calculation. Things much further away have the expanding universe to deal with. I believe that for something that is only receding at the speed of universe expansion and a distance away is in our time frame, even though it is moving away. So maybe Lorentz transformations was the way to go, before a real theory could be developed. IE Einstein’s special. -
539 - June 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm - Pope Pixel the Wench-Addict Says:
Haven’t been here in FOREVER!
Bobby needs to make a new thread to save me from the lag!
@bill
Are you the same bill I’m thinking about? You’re a teacher right? Haven’t talked to you in…
that’s right…
FOREVER!
I need to catch up a little I suppose.
RAmen -
540 - June 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm - Rowdier Wench Says:
@ Pixely Dude - It’s harder to keep up around here without the Recent Comments section!
