Advertisement
by Astralsideria » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:36 pm
by Conscentia » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:40 pm
Astralsideria wrote:I once knew a girl whom, despite her being a generally-lovely person, I still struggle to forgive for coming out of an exam asking "What's the Papacy?", pronouncing it "pap-uh-see". That and the memorable line from someone I once (embarrassingly) lost an election to, "What, you mean them Chinese Asians you get in Japan?" when discussing the topic (which he started) "Are there Asian people in Sri Lanka?". These are the things which have most contributed to the eradication in my mind of the idea of "common knowledge". Oh, and the fact that I flatter myself that I'm not an abnormally-stupid person, but I still don't know how many chromosomes we have. I do know that I've been told, several times, but I don't know how many.
Misc. Test Results And Assorted Other | The NSG Soviet Last Updated: Test Results (2018/02/02) | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:42 pm
by Astralsideria » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:44 pm
Conscentia wrote:Astralsideria wrote:I once knew a girl whom, despite her being a generally-lovely person, I still struggle to forgive for coming out of an exam asking "What's the Papacy?", pronouncing it "pap-uh-see". That and the memorable line from someone I once (embarrassingly) lost an election to, "What, you mean them Chinese Asians you get in Japan?" when discussing the topic (which he started) "Are there Asian people in Sri Lanka?". These are the things which have most contributed to the eradication in my mind of the idea of "common knowledge". Oh, and the fact that I flatter myself that I'm not an abnormally-stupid person, but I still don't know how many chromosomes we have. I do know that I've been told, several times, but I don't know how many.
Well considering that Sri Lanka is in Asia the answer to that question should be obvious. (Who asks such an uneducated question?!)
And Humans have 46 chromosome.
by United States of Raptors » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:44 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:I only have one:
That most people in NSG actually know that much about history/archaeology in the first place.
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:45 pm
United States of Raptors wrote:The Emerald Dawn wrote:HURRR let's throw sticks at the 1,000 kilogram animal! I'm such a victim!
Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD
You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.
by Jagalonia » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:47 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:United States of Raptors wrote:
Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD
You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.
Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Conscentia » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:50 pm
Astralsideria wrote:[...] And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort
[...]
Misc. Test Results And Assorted Other | The NSG Soviet Last Updated: Test Results (2018/02/02) | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
by Cetacea » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:51 pm
Astralsideria wrote:Conscentia wrote:Well considering that Sri Lanka is in Asia the answer to that question should be obvious. (Who asks such an uneducated question?!)
And Humans have 46 chromosome.
I knew that Sri Lanka was in Asia, and he should've too, since we were both part of a group going there. Thinking back, I think he may have known it was in Asia, but just wasn't sure if that automatically meant there'd be Asians there or not. His mind always was something difficult to fathom, and, indeed, on some occasions, rather difficult to imagine existing. And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort
EDIT: In the interests of salvaging some sort of image of myself as knowing at least a thing or two, I'd like to reiterate that it was he who asked if there were Asians in Sri Lanka, and that the discussion was prolonged beyond two or three sentences only by some laughter and his reluctance to understand. The word discussion should not, although it may already have done, suggest that both sides needed to put thought into getting an answer; only he did
by Astralsideria » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:55 pm
Cetacea wrote:Astralsideria wrote:
I knew that Sri Lanka was in Asia, and he should've too, since we were both part of a group going there. Thinking back, I think he may have known it was in Asia, but just wasn't sure if that automatically meant there'd be Asians there or not. His mind always was something difficult to fathom, and, indeed, on some occasions, rather difficult to imagine existing. And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort
EDIT: In the interests of salvaging some sort of image of myself as knowing at least a thing or two, I'd like to reiterate that it was he who asked if there were Asians in Sri Lanka, and that the discussion was prolonged beyond two or three sentences only by some laughter and his reluctance to understand. The word discussion should not, although it may already have done, suggest that both sides needed to put thought into getting an answer; only he did
thats because Asians come from China the people in Sri Lanka are obviously Indians who are obviously not Chinese
(sarcasm btw)
but yeah people should know the continents and generally where countries fit
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:05 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:United States of Raptors wrote:
Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD
You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.
Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.
by Pope Joan » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:08 pm
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:10 pm
by Neo Art » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:14 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so thatwhen the woman pulled over to move her coffeeafter her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:19 pm
Neo Art wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so thatwhen the woman pulled over to move her coffeeafter her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.
Fixed.
Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!
The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.
This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:23 pm
Neo Art wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so thatwhen the woman pulled over to move her coffeeafter her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.
Fixed.
Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!
The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.
This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.
by Neo Art » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:24 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Fixed.
Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!
The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.
This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.
One small step for man. That's why these threads exist, now I've looked up the case and I know you're right. It's amazing what can happen when "common knowledge" isn't expected to be common.
by Neo Art » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:25 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:
if i remember the case correctly, mcdonalds had signed a bunch of conset degrees in other suits promising to lower the temp of the coffee and never did, the large damage award in part reflected mcdonalds deliberately ignoring the previous agreements it had made.
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:28 pm
Neo Art wrote:The Emerald Dawn wrote:One small step for man. That's why these threads exist, now I've looked up the case and I know you're right. It's amazing what can happen when "common knowledge" isn't expected to be common.
Liebeck has become a particular pet peeve of mine, and how this innocent woman became lambasted in the media, and was publically humiliated until the day she died, and for nearly a decade since, has always bothered me.
I have always contented that any intellectually honest person, when confronted with the real, honest, actual facts of this case, would not only agree that the ruling was perfectly justified, but would be horrified by what McDonald's did. The fact that they knew this would happen and did it anyway, because it was more profitable, is horrifying.
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:57 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Liebeck has become a particular pet peeve of mine, and how this innocent woman became lambasted in the media, and was publically humiliated until the day she died, and for nearly a decade since, has always bothered me.
I have always contented that any intellectually honest person, when confronted with the real, honest, actual facts of this case, would not only agree that the ruling was perfectly justified, but would be horrified by what McDonald's did. The fact that they knew this would happen and did it anyway, because it was more profitable, is horrifying.
I don't disagree at all, that's pretty much bullshit what McDonald's did, and thereby makes this case not an example of the "don't drink the windex" style problem I have. This is a company endangering people for profits. I now remove it from my lexicon of examples of over-protectiveness.
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:58 pm
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:The Emerald Dawn wrote:I don't disagree at all, that's pretty much bullshit what McDonald's did, and thereby makes this case not an example of the "don't drink the windex" style problem I have. This is a company endangering people for profits. I now remove it from my lexicon of examples of over-protectiveness.
One thing that really should be common knowledge...corporations will always place profit above ethics if the level of risk is acceptable. Be it from endangering peoples lives to committing illegal acts.
by Martean » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:01 pm
Duvniask wrote:Cabra West wrote:
Heh, that reminds me, during the last football world cup, we had an office bet that went as follows:
The participating countries were written on little strips of paper (luckily, that near enough matched the number of people in the office).
Every participant paid €5, and was allowed to draw one country from a hat. If that country won, they got the total takings.
My (then) manager pulled her slip of paper from the hat, read it and shouted: "Horrendous? Where in earth is Horrendous?"
Turned out to be Honduras, but she still had never heard of it and had no idea where it was...
Some people just aren't very good at geography. Apparently.
by The Emerald Dawn » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:05 pm
by Miasto Lodz » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:13 pm
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:15 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
One thing that really should be common knowledge...corporations will always place profit above ethics if the level of risk is acceptable. Be it from endangering peoples lives to committing illegal acts.
But that doesn't mean that individuals will not seek to profit from laws that allow them to place themselves over the "collective good" at a corporation's expense.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bronzite, Israel and the Sinai, Juansonia, Kubra, Plan Neonie, Saiwana, Statesburg, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement