PDA

View Full Version : NazNet pre-written numbered response system



G R 'Scott' Cundiff
June 4th, 2010, 08:10 AM
Here's a blast from the past...

For the sake of brevity here on NazNet, I believe a Numbered Pre-Stated Response system would be in order.

The idea is that when you are in a discussion with someone and want to give a generic response, you just respond with a number that states your position.

For instance, you might want to post, in response to this message:

Scott,
101
--Signed

Think of the time and effort this will save!

Here are some suggestions:

77 = "I fear I posted without thinking (again). Please forgive me (again)."

101 = "I don't really have anything to add here but had the uncontrollable urge to post something"

102 = "I have no idea of what you are talking about but want to compliment you on your spelling and punctuation"

103 = "You are winning the argument, but I have found a typo and am working on a post about that"

104 = "You are winning the argument, so consider this response to represent a brilliant counter-argument"

105 = "I don't have a good response so I am labeling you to be a Calvinist, Pentecostal, or Liberal"

106 = "I don't have a good response but I am sure someone else will put you in your place shortly"

107 = "How dare you disagree with me, I am a life long Nazarene!"

108 = "I have decided to drop the debate format and go to insults instead, consider yourself insulted!"

109 = "Actually, my mind is made up on this issue, so don't confuse me with the facts"

110 = "Posts which disagree with me are not welcome, respond only if you want to agree with my great wisdom"

111 = "I'm really just looking for a friendly post from some kind person"

112 = "Thanks for the laugh. Oh, you mean you were serious -- oops!"

666 = "Rather than deal with the issues at hand, I am going emotionally accuse you of sinister motives"

777 = "I have had a divine revelation about this, so any further debate is with the Lord and not me"

999 = "I only wish I had the intellectual brilliance of Scott Cundiff in explaining my position"

Shea Zellweger
June 4th, 2010, 08:22 AM
...112

Joanne Vergin
June 4th, 2010, 08:45 AM
106..

Jon Twitchell
June 4th, 2010, 09:10 AM
101...

Shea Zellweger
June 4th, 2010, 09:12 AM
24601

Scott Sherwood
June 4th, 2010, 10:51 AM
8675309

Shea Zellweger
June 4th, 2010, 02:02 PM
8675309

"I tried my imagination, but I was disturbed"?

G R 'Scott' Cundiff
June 4th, 2010, 02:33 PM
24601

I'm not sure you're allowed to use that kind of language on NazNet.

Shea Zellweger
June 4th, 2010, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure you're allowed to use that kind of language on NazNet.

hmmm... I think you and I have very different impressions concerning the meaning of that number.

Kazimiera Fraley
June 4th, 2010, 03:58 PM
8675309

I completely agree. Couldn't have said it better myself!

G R 'Scott' Cundiff
June 4th, 2010, 06:09 PM
hmmm... I think you and I have very different impressions concerning the meaning of that number.

I thought you were being funny, making up a meaningless number as part of the humor of the thread. Sorry.

Greg Farra
June 4th, 2010, 06:17 PM
90125-Yes

Dennis M. Scott
June 4th, 2010, 07:06 PM
110010100010100011101

Shea Zellweger
June 4th, 2010, 08:21 PM
I thought you were being funny, making up a meaningless number as part of the humor of the thread. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24601


110010100010100011101

just wondering, is this sequential binary, a regular number, or a binary expression of a number? If the last, then what significance does 1656093 have? (I used a calculator, I'm not THAT nerdy)

Jim Chabot
June 4th, 2010, 09:11 PM
(I used a calculator, I'm not THAT nerdy)

101 . .

Gina Stevenson
June 5th, 2010, 01:00 AM
In regard to #999, my reply --- #112. :smilies1722:

Dennis M. Scott
June 5th, 2010, 04:27 AM
Scott, all this scrolling up and down the page until we memorize the numbers is far too cumbersome. We need a split screen, with all the options on the left column, and numbered narrative on the right, along with the reply screen. We're getting bogged down in all the minutia.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff
June 5th, 2010, 07:48 AM
Scott, all this scrolling up and down the page until we memorize the numbers is far too cumbersome. We need a split screen, with all the options on the left column, and numbered narrative on the right, along with the reply screen. We're getting bogged down in all the minutia.

Dear Dennis,
#77

Mike Wooldridge
June 5th, 2010, 12:05 PM
I'm not sure you're allowed to use that kind of language on NazNet.
65=OK, A Forum Host has approved your post. :ihe_cowboy:

Gina Stevenson
June 5th, 2010, 09:00 PM
65=OK, A Forum Host has approved your post. :ihe_cowboy:

Ahhh, this isn't on Scott's list. On which "list" did you find this numbered reply, eh? ;)

David Troxler
June 5th, 2010, 10:13 PM
Maybe we should just deep 6 all this...

Mike Wooldridge
June 5th, 2010, 11:27 PM
Ahhh, this isn't on Scott's list. On which "list" did you find this numbered reply, eh? ;)OK is 65 on a telephone keypad. How's that for a list, 42, I mean GB? :confused:

Mike Wooldridge
June 5th, 2010, 11:31 PM
Maybe we should just deep 6 all this...
That's a big 10-4! ;)

David Troxler
June 6th, 2010, 08:47 PM
That's a big 10-4! ;)

Was that supposed to be "104" indicating that I actually have a winning argument about mind-numbing number nonsense.

Btw Mike, your post is indeed brilliant, not so much a counter-argument but a well choosen and cogently numbered endorsement.

Mike Wooldridge
June 9th, 2010, 11:09 PM
Was that supposed to be "104" indicating that I actually have a winning argument about mind-numbing number nonsense.

Btw Mike, your post is indeed brilliant, not so much a counter-argument but a well choosen and cogently numbered endorsement.
Nope, it was supposed to be 10-4, two-way radio code for message received and understood.
BTW, 999!