Rule for this thread.

Post Reply New Topic

You know if you stumble upon an infinite truth by the beautiful impression it makes upon its discovery. It clicks some mental puzzle pieces together.

New rule: State your opinion about numeric synesthesia. Do you think those savants can actually feel the numbers the way they claim they can?

I have numeric synesthesia, and I say I can feel numbers just as I describe them, thanks.


The rule is: Say something nice about someone on this forum.

Bluestocking has a cool avatar.

New rule: don't post a new rule at the end of your post.

Persuasive Suggestion: Describe your personal carbon footprint.

I spend too much time on my computer, I like meat, I exhale. I have a carbon footprint, and it is likely smaller than the average person(no car, so that saves me somewhat), but still existent.

Rule: Tell us what you think about this quote: "To kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable, but to have him killed by someone else after calm and serious meditation and on the pretext of duty honourably discharged is incomprehensible." Also, do you think the speaker is right or wrong? Why?

I think that quote attempts to draw a moral distinction between crimes of passion and premeditated malice. As far as whether the speaker is right or wrong, you would have to argue that emotionally excited individuals have diminished capacity for moral judgment as compared to more calm, relaxed individuals, and that intent is relevant in crime.

New rule: derail this thread.

Orwell, that's a terrible idea!!

Here are the reasons:

1) That violates the OP's rules.
2) That is rather unkind to do to the OP for the prior reason.
3) That ruins other people's fun in giving rules and responding to other rules.
4) You are doing this with an ill will.

I dare you to come up with a counter-argument such to argue that it is just to derail this thread! Come on, Orwell! Do it! Argue with me about this injustice you are committed on the OP, for I will not abide by your twisted will!

Also, yes, the first part is true and obvious.

Umm.... actually, the speaker was not arguing for a diminished capacity for moral judgment. The quote's author is Marquis de Sade, and he basically argued that following a sense of order was bad, as the impassioned will and willingness to do crime was more akin to nature and thus better.

New rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 04 Apr 2009, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ And yet you followed the new rule...

As far as a counter-argument as to why it is just to derail this thread, I will simply appeal to the nature of PPR, in which threads all eventually get derailed. I am simply helping the process along. Anyways, this thread does not belong in PPR but in Random or wherever Thread Games go.

Now, for reason 1), I don't believe Iamnotaparakeet ever made a rule about not derailing the thread. Reason 2) holds, as yes, this probably is impolite to some extent. I can't argue against 3). 4) is not true, I simply found amusement in finding a loophole in the thread rules.

New rule: Future posters must continue to abide by AG's above rule about continuing the debate to perpetuity, and not add any of their own rules.

Well duh! I never said I was a good person, gee!


Orwell, I think the OP wanted this to be a beacon of fun in the smarmy depths of PPR, where posters could thoughtfully play rather than debate about whether the Christian God could create a raccoon which was too ugly for him look at, and then fry it in bacon grease.

Orwell, there are 2 sets of rules: implicit and explicit. The OP never explicitly created a rule against your project, however, this is a violation of the implicit rule that the OP put forward, which was that this would be a fun "Rule for this thread" thread.

4) is quite true, as this is somewhat with an ill will. After all, the twisted smiley is not a sign of a good will and you know that. And this isn't even the first effort to do this, but rather another attempt at this after a first failure.

New rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate. (note, you can rephrase this in any way you wish, so long as you obey it, as you have to follow my rule, but you can choose the words and phrasings, such that this next rule is your new made-up rule, it just must still obey my rule )

I would like to point out Orwell has failed to acknowledge point three. Rather than mere fun in finding loopholes, I agree with the accusation of twistedness. I also make note of AG's willingness to follow along despite his position on point three. One might conclude this derailment is some sort conspiracy against the other posters of this thread, who might have fun giving rules and responding to other rules.

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, and also must somehow throw in the word 'pickle' into their new rule.

Yes, Orwell is fiendish. AG is also kind of fiendish. Have you never wondered why he smiles the way he does??

In any case, I suppose one could argue in favor of Orwell, after all, he might not have a good theory of mind, and on this forum, it is particularly of interest to test ideas. Orwell was testing an idea by trying to see if he could derail a thread, and that *is* what PPR is about, as he noted.

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, also they must claim that Orwell is a giant pickle on the search for a place where it is legal to marry an ape.

I will concede to your arguement of Orwell's defense, even though he is a giant pickle on the search for a place where it is legal to marry an ape, and your defense of him is just what a co-conspirator might say. I still have great concerns about that AG character though. That fiendish smile of his is clear evidence he is certainly not pure of motive.

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, also they must include a childhood nursery rhyme as part of their arguement.

Claire, I did point out that I had no way of responding to AG's point 3. It is true, my derailment would seem to break the thread, which ruins the fun it is (at least, the fun of the type the OP intended).

AG, I may have had a sinister smiley, but again, I like to find loopholes. Since early childhood, I have always delighted in finding built-in contradictions and flaws in anything I've come across. And yes, it took me two tries, but I wanted to go the milder route first. I actually anticipated that Claire would circumvent my first attempt by posting the new rule at the beginning of the post instead of the end. But I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow this thread down! And I have no reason to accept implicit rules as you have promoted. I'm Aspie, and as you noted I have lousy theory of mind, so rules should be explicit or they will be ignored.

New rule: You all know the routine, keep the debate going, make your new rule such that the debate continues until the death of this thread, and make sure to invoke some wide-ranging conspiracy involving either Illuminati or Jews (or maybe even reptilians) to explain why I have subverted this thread.

I contend You and AG are attempting to establish the New World Order of Fun, within this thread of rules and fun; and your sinister plot has been exposed by your own neglegence of including a childhood nursery rhyme in your last arguement.

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, and also must put this thread back on its original track.

Because this rule carries a contradiction in itself, I feel it is necessary to disregard it. Especially given that I, as the rule-enactor, AM THE LAW!! ! BWA HA HA HA HA!

In any case, I agree that Orwell failed to include a nursury rhyme, but he attempted by going 3 little pigs, so you have to give him credit for that.

In any case, I would counter-contend that the OP's actions constituted an invasion of the sovereign land of PPR, and thus Orwell and I are not engaged in a sinister plot, but rather reinstating the old order and cultural traditions of the PPR, rather than let it's glorious ways die off from a medley of silly rules. As such, we are just noble countrymen acting in defense of our sacred ways. Instead, the OP and all those who follow him are the colonial aggressors!!

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, and also must make fun of Claire333's hair as part of an ad hominem argument against anything she says, even if it is an undisputed fact claim(like reality exists, blue is blue, or 1+1=2). This rule even follows for Claire333 herself.

See, evil laughter. I knew there was something sinister going on here.

You are correct. I missed it. My only defense to offer to this oversight is the fact that my hair is a big nasty mop which obscures some of the text on the screen from reaching my view.

Oh yes, using the ruse of maintaining order for the people to cover up the fact that what looks like old rules are really new rules. The conspiracy only thickens.

New Rule: The next poster must continue this debate, and create rules such that this debate will continue until the thread dies, as in they must dictate as best as possible that every poster after them creates rules to continue the debate, and also must include UFOs in the mix.