Talk:Wife
From Science Encyclopedia
| WARNING: THIS ARTICLE MAY CONTAIN SMALL TRACES OF WOO WOO. Anyone with an intact brain should proceed with extreme caution. |
Discussion
- Lots of discussion here, a lot of nagging too, are you sure you are not all wives?
- Girl's blouse. GeoffP GeoffP 20:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Amen. Hey did you see what that one guy did to my ENC post? But he didn't delete it all. Wierd. GeoffP
No...what how where who? Spuriousmonkey 16:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Spuriousmonkey 16:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Some guy named TonL6j. He deleted all the References and part of the Trivia. I was kind of annoyed given how much work so many contributed to the article. But he just got the Refs and the Trivia. Odd. Maybe he thought this was a real encyclopedia or something.
Frankly...I suspect it was James R, and that he just finally cracked.
James R - eternal straight-man and decent, upright fellow - just couldn't take his precious, precious site being saturated with drivel; its arguments constantly derailed by a pack of gibbering would-be comedians, woo-woos and Nickelodeon, its informational content reduced to debates on whether Star Trek or Star Wars was a) more realistic, b) tougher or c) less condusive to a social life involving women or sunshine. The site - that serene, striking concept with its straight lines and pure, unadulterated angles of discussion - well, that was dead. Deader than a hammer hammered with another dead hammer.
But they won't get my Encyclopedia too, he probably thought.
Probably rising up and probably screaming "You can't have the Encyclopedia! She's mine, all mine!" - which probably scared the people in the nearby cubicles - he probably frantically registered a new id for the Encyclopedia. Now he was ready. Arthur had his Caledfdwch; a few lines of falsified code and the remnants of his soul.
His first target was that worst of those drivel-posters and argument derailers. "I'll get that GeoffP, and his little droogs too!" he probably cried, and then he probably laughed maniacally, but probably in kind of a cracked falsetto, like a witch or maybe a little girl.
Probably reasoning in his delerium that the References and Trivia was the most heinous of falsely sourced (curse them!) and nearly litigiously wrong material - that horrid, stinking albatross around his once-beautiful site's neck - he attacked that first.
But, in his zealousness, he made a fatal mistake: not destroying all the previous versions of the article.
"No!" he probably cried when he saw it was all back again, again startling all the people in the cubicles around his, and the mail boy. Worse yet, he realized in his overlordshipness that the bastard GeoffP had saved everything to his hard drive! "NOOOOOOOoooooooooo!" came the mournful wail. Never again would his site be Perfect, like she had been before they came. Before they destroyed everything. Never again would she be Beautiful, with reasoned arguments and friendly debate and jocular hail-fellow structure; never again would she be - Clean.
There was only one thing left to do.
Eyes maddened and reddened with the compounded weeks of helplessly watching her slow, relentless degradation, he climbed on top of his desk and leaped the entire 2 ft to the cruel, cruel shallow imitation shag carpeting below.
I've seen a few scenarios on the site, and this one strikes me as pretty likely.
When this all comes out - and it will - it'll be bigger than Watergate, or maybe Jesus.
That is, if Watergate was really, really small and insignificant and no one cared about it. GeoffP
- Hmmm.... James R 21:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- Aha! An admission! Well, not really. But the forces of...well, not revolution, unless it's revolution against nothing...will have you yet, running dog of...well, not capitalism. Let's say "honest debate and dialogue", that infernal thorn in the side of...something. Sort of lost track of my point here. But I will be avenged! On something. Seriously though, James, who would chop part of the article? Odd. Anyway, it was a colourful narrative. =) GeoffP
- Or maybe hurling the server down to the shag carpet would have been better? Which is more tragic? The end of the individual, or the soul? GeoffP
- Neither, because both do not exist. Spuriousmonkey 05:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- ooooh, that's deep, that is. GeoffP
- Neither, because both do not exist. Spuriousmonkey 05:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Or maybe hurling the server down to the shag carpet would have been better? Which is more tragic? The end of the individual, or the soul? GeoffP
one of the worst of those drivel-posters and argument derailers
There is a difference between GeoffP and spuriousmonkey. I am not one of the worst. I am the worst (read out loud like Sylvester stallone would say: I am the law). Spuriousmonkey 05:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Would you say it in a thick deficient voice and muffle your "th"'s? ("I am duh law!") GeoffP
- What the fuck is going on here? Nickelodeon 07:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Dunno...my guess is that the illuminati are trying to make things vague and confusing. Spuriousmonkey 08:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- No we aren't. Oops. I mean: we don't exist. That's what we would tell you, if we existed.
- 'Better than Wikipedia'? No comparable source.
- compare it with wikipedia as a source.
- Oh right, Ted.
- no problem Bill.
- Oh right, Ted.
- compare it with wikipedia as a source.
- 'Better than Wikipedia'? No comparable source.
- No we aren't. Oops. I mean: we don't exist. That's what we would tell you, if we existed.
- Dunno...my guess is that the illuminati are trying to make things vague and confusing. Spuriousmonkey 08:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
vot?
- Ted: Dougal, you can't sit around here watching television all day - chewing gum for the eyes!
- Dougal: Oh no thanks Ted, I've got these crisps, here.
- "Attention please, a child has been lost in the tunnel of goats."
- "I won't be happy until the last rabbit round here is the one inside your head, working the controls!"
