THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 28 Mar 2024, 09:08
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: There oughta be a law!  (Read 106607 times)

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #300 on: 09 Nov 2012, 18:29 »

I honestly don't get what your objection is. You object to people wearing tight pants?
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #301 on: 09 Nov 2012, 19:52 »

No, leggings are not just tight pants.  They're skin tight, conforming to everything, much like tights do.  And the problem she has is not with the leggings per se, but with them being worn with very short shirts so that everything is hanging out. 


The comment about cameltoe should have made that fairly clear...
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Papersatan

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,368
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #302 on: 09 Nov 2012, 20:24 »

Leggings are made of thin stretchy material.  They are like a compromise between pants and stockings.  When your skirt/tunic thing is short enough that you might expose yourself legging as the way to go, because they are totally opaque, but are not bulky enough to change your profile like pants.  Many people (particularly college undergrads?) wear them with regular length shirts on top.  The objection is that leggings are not pants and I tend to agree.

I am not generally one to shame someone for their choice of clothing.  Leggings can be incredibly comfortable, and you are under no obligation to put together a nice looking outfit when you leave the house.  Ladies, if you want to throw on whatever is close at hand, that is fine.  That is a legit way to choose your clothing.  The reason leggings as pants frustrates me so much is that many of the ladies wearing them look like they took the time to put on make up and do their hair, and find coordinating accessories.  If you did all that, then you though leggings and a t-shirt was a good looking combination? If so, then lets talk fashion choices a minute.

If you insist on wearing leggings as pants, I am going to analyse them as pants.  They are knit fabric, elastic waist pants.  Elastic waist, knit fabric pants are not cute.  They have a well established tradition in our world of clothing choices.  They signal something, something we all know they signal, but which apparently by calling them leggings and not elastic waist pants, we are pretending they are free of the sigma of.  People do not wear elastic waist pants to be fashionable; they are pants which one wears out of necessity, even though they are not fashionable, because you are a member of a class for whom a particular function is much more important than form.  One wears elastic waist pants because you need the "on off" function of pants to be easy to operate.  The well established class of people who already wear elastic waist pants is people who have trouble getting real pants on and off when they need to pee: Toddlers and the elderly.  Those are the people who wear elastic waist, knit fabric pants.  I know that hug your firm young bottom nicely, but so will a good pair of jeans and I will not pretend that wearing toddler pants projects a pulled together and fashionable appearance.
Logged
[12:07] ackblom12: hi again honey
[12:08] ackblom12: I'm tired of lookin at that ugly little face

nekowafer

  • ASDFSFAALYG8A@*& ^$%O
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,925
  • fuck the secret sauce I'm gothalicious with cheese
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #303 on: 09 Nov 2012, 20:49 »

Another problem with leggings:



Hint: look at her ankles.
Logged
what she said was sad, but then, all the rejections she's had, to pretend to be happy could only be idiocy

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #304 on: 09 Nov 2012, 20:54 »

The ankles arent the problem.   :-D
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #305 on: 09 Nov 2012, 22:43 »

I've heard the whole leggings vs. pants before, and I still don't get it. Probably because the word "pants" to me means "something you wear from the waist down that covers your legs". I don't see how leggings aren't pants. Unpleasant looking and tight pants, sure, but pants nonetheless!
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

pwhodges

  • Admin emeritus
  • Awakened
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17,241
  • I'll only say this once...
    • My home page
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #306 on: 09 Nov 2012, 23:11 »

Even ignoring the fact that pants has a different meaning where I live, do you really think of tights as pants also?
Logged
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important."  (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?"  (from: The Eccentric Family )

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #307 on: 09 Nov 2012, 23:16 »

Why wouldn't I? Aren't they pants that dancers wear? Also don't you use the word trousers like I would use the word pants?
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

pwhodges

  • Admin emeritus
  • Awakened
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17,241
  • I'll only say this once...
    • My home page
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #308 on: 09 Nov 2012, 23:33 »

Yes; but trousers would never extend to leggings or tights, and would only include jeans generically ("jeans are a type of unlined trouser*", yes; but not "pass me those trousers" when they are jeans).

* Yes, this is a rare sentence in which I would use the singular form!
Logged
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important."  (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?"  (from: The Eccentric Family )

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #309 on: 09 Nov 2012, 23:41 »

Interesting. So trousers is not just a regional word for pants, since jeans are pants. Unless they're not. This is way too complicated.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #310 on: 10 Nov 2012, 02:03 »

To me, pants are what Paul calls trousers.  Jeans are jeans... there are also sweat pants, and what my wife calls stretch pants, which are much tighter and more form fitting than pants but not completely so - they still have legs that hang free from the knee down.  Leggings, on the other hand, are completely form fitting, like tights but generally made from heavier material (tights tend to be somewhat translucent when stretched).  Hose are a different matter, much lighter weight material, nearly transparent when stretched to shape. 


My wife was a costumer for several years; the distinctions in terminology become important.  Want someone to look like they stepped out of the 80's?  Leggings with an asymmetrically collared t-shirt.  The 70's?  Stretch pants with a loud polyester blouse (preferably with ruffles). 
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #311 on: 10 Nov 2012, 02:21 »

I would call jeans trousers, in the general sense of the sentence "I no longer wear trousers", but I definitely wouldn't call leggings trousers. That'd be a bit like saying that boxer shorts are "pants" because they're the same sort of shape and cover the same areas as regular shorts. True, but if you go out in a shirt and your boxers you will look undressed. Same with leggings.
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

Welu

  • It was me, Austin. It was me all along.
  • Global Moderator
  • comeback tour!
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,722
  • That's a smashing blouse. FELLA!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #312 on: 10 Nov 2012, 03:43 »

Thank you all for explaining and much better than I could, including the pants/trousers definitions. Nekowafer linked the image I couldn't find, even. My discussion skills are a bit rusty, it seems.

Bluesummers

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Professional Beep Booper
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #313 on: 10 Nov 2012, 07:25 »

Another problem with leggings:



Hint: look at her ankles.

Most places I worked at (OK, all the places I've worked at) have contracts that mention a dress code, and specifically prohibit "tight pants and short-shorts."
Logged
Worry Hat, Engage!

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #314 on: 10 Nov 2012, 07:40 »

I would call jeans trousers, in the general sense of the sentence "I no longer wear trousers", but I definitely wouldn't call leggings trousers. That'd be a bit like saying that boxer shorts are "pants" because they're the same sort of shape and cover the same areas as regular shorts. True, but if you go out in a shirt and your boxers you will look undressed. Same with leggings.
Fair enough...but shorts aren't pants, they're shorts. But boxers are underpants. Are leggings just long underpants or something? I'd never heard the term used until recently.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #315 on: 10 Nov 2012, 07:41 »

AAAHHHH!!

I just realized she was a cashier, and not just standing in line at a checkout.   



Dress codes FTW...
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

nekowafer

  • ASDFSFAALYG8A@*& ^$%O
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,925
  • fuck the secret sauce I'm gothalicious with cheese
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #316 on: 10 Nov 2012, 09:09 »

Thank you all for explaining and much better than I could, including the pants/trousers definitions. Nekowafer linked the image I couldn't find, even. My discussion skills are a bit rusty, it seems.

It took me a little while to find it, if that makes you feel any better.
Logged
what she said was sad, but then, all the rejections she's had, to pretend to be happy could only be idiocy

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #317 on: 10 Nov 2012, 10:12 »

I personally would consider leggings to be underwear, yes. I think this isn't just me (I also consider shorts to be underwear, at least for myself - not that I wear shorts as underwear, just that they're too... short... to be outerwear), I think most people do. But not those people, clearly!
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #318 on: 10 Nov 2012, 11:03 »

I see leggings as an accessory. They can add to an outfit, but the outfit should be able to survive without them if need be. Same as tights, opaque or sheer. This is why I do not classify tights as pants and if I do wear them out of the house (my reasons tend to be it's chilly, I'm wearing a top/tunic/dress that would not be suitable for pants, or I don't feel like wearing real pants), my butt and crotch HAVE to be covered at all times but whatever top/tunic/dress I'm wearing. And for fashion aesthetics, I think this rule should apply to all people, but it never does.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

bainidhe_dub

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,445
    • tumblr
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #319 on: 10 Nov 2012, 11:14 »

Leggings and opaque tights are acceptable as the only thing covering your legs, but not your butt/crotch. But I wouldn't necessarily say the outfit has to be able to stand without them. They can serve to bring a top from "is that supposed to be a shirt or a dress? either way it's way too short to wear in public" to "acceptable because now I won't see your panties if you happen to bend over".
Logged
I am lurking so hard right now. You have no idea.

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #320 on: 10 Nov 2012, 12:18 »

just that they're too... short... to be outerwear
Are we talking short shorts or all shorts?
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

TheEvilDog

  • Guest
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #321 on: 10 Nov 2012, 12:22 »

I've heard the whole leggings vs. pants before, and I still don't get it. Probably because the word "pants" to me means "something you wear from the waist down that covers your legs". I don't see how leggings aren't pants. Unpleasant looking and tight pants, sure, but pants nonetheless!

In situations like this, I remember words given to me by an uncle. "Quit while you're behind."
Logged

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #322 on: 10 Nov 2012, 13:02 »

MoM, for me personally, all shorts. I dress in a way that covers my knees and shoulders - with the very occasional exception for dresses which are a bit above the knee and I wear with opaque tights (or leggings!). On other people I don't mind, although long bare legs on attractive women are distracting...
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #323 on: 10 Nov 2012, 13:05 »

Just to really mess things up: Jeggings!
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #324 on: 10 Nov 2012, 13:10 »

TED, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to learn.  As for jeggings, aside from being...well, kind of weird, I'd consider them pants, but not jeans.  In fact, how could leggings have pockets and belt loops and still not be pants?

Wait, no, just read "fake pockets and belt loops". TOBAL against fake pockets.  Or pants without pockets at all.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #325 on: 10 Nov 2012, 13:20 »

TOBAL against trousers with boxers sown in so that you can walk around with your backside hanging out.
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Lines

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,234
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #326 on: 10 Nov 2012, 15:32 »

Leggings and opaque tights are acceptable as the only thing covering your legs, but not your butt/crotch. But I wouldn't necessarily say the outfit has to be able to stand without them. They can serve to bring a top from "is that supposed to be a shirt or a dress? either way it's way too short to wear in public" to "acceptable because now I won't see your panties if you happen to bend over".

That's what I meant. Wearing that shirt without leggings would be indecent. I mean, you could wear pants, but if the choice is leggings or no leggings, the outfit wouldn't work without them.
Logged
:grumpypuss: :grumpypuss: :grumpypuss:

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #327 on: 10 Nov 2012, 16:22 »

Pilchard, are those a thing? Because if so...ew.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Akima

  • WoW gold miner on break
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,523
  • ** 妇女能顶半边天 **
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #328 on: 11 Nov 2012, 01:13 »

As far as I am concerned, jeans are just a subset of trousers not something distinct, just like cords or moleskins. The fashion industry seems to have decided that a pair of ladies trousers should be called a "pant", but I don't know why. I thought pant is what dogs did.

I agree with Welu that any top you wear with leggings should be long enough to cover your bottom. The only exception I make is my cycling leggings in winter, where my jersey has to be short enough to avoid snagging on the saddle, but at least there the chamois hides the bits I would rather not flash to the world.
Logged
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." Richard Feynman

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #329 on: 11 Nov 2012, 02:47 »

Pilchard, are those a thing? Because if so...ew.

These?
TOBAL against trousers with boxers sown in so that you can walk around with your backside hanging out.


Yea, they are. There was/is a fashion for wearing trousers very low, so that the top of your underwear shows over the waistband of your trousers. A diagram of the offending article: http://i34.tinypic.com/plidu.jpg
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #330 on: 11 Nov 2012, 05:16 »

Akima, I make an exception for sportswear, because there is a function which renders the otherwise inappropriate garment suitable. A bit like swimwear. No one would argue that it's wrong to wear a swimming costume, but someone who walked around in just a leotard would get some funny looks (and at this time of year in the UK, hypothermia).
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

Mr. Doctor

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,323
  • X-Ray Rod
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #331 on: 11 Nov 2012, 05:18 »

If 1/4 of the class doesn't understand what the University teacher is writing. He/She MUST take a course for proper writing. This is not negotiable and any teacher who refuses to change will be punished some way or another.


(Seriously... I'm sick of that)
Logged

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #332 on: 11 Nov 2012, 08:17 »

So you're talking legibility, not content, right? 


I'm left handed.  I eat left handed, and several other things are more comfortable that way. 

Not completely, though - ambidexterity runs in my family.  I'm ambidextrous enough so that, in first grade, when they were showing us how a let handed person holds a pencil so as not to smear (couldn't find an image of that for those of you younger than about 30, you hooked your wrist, it was terrible) - well, I laughed and laughed, and put the pencil in my right hand. 

The result of that decision is that I don't really have the coordination to write right-handed, and no training to write left handed (although I can do a nice mirror-script left handed, go figure). 

At the beginning of each semester, I apologize to my students, and tell them that, "If at any time you can't read what I've written, please be sure to stop me.  Odds are, no one else can read it either, and sometimes even I can't read it..."


As for understanding the content, well, I teach math and stats.... :evil:
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #333 on: 11 Nov 2012, 08:26 »

Oh!  I found a pic of someone demonstrating this technique - note how the hand is hooked above the line of writing, so that the pen leads at the correct angle (a right-handed angle). 

I found it very uncomfortable. 


Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #334 on: 11 Nov 2012, 08:35 »

I really hated my stats classes at college, though I think that was more to do with the teacher (Finished all the work? You obviously didn't do it well enough. Didn't finish the work? You're lazy/not trying/too distracted.) than the subject. I found myself missing the classes a few days ago because I'm losing the ability to do what I learned.

As for writing, I'm also a cack-hander and...well, let's just say that I should become a doctor.
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Zingoleb

  • Guest
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #335 on: 11 Nov 2012, 08:51 »

I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting; nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality, counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications' incomprehensibleness.

(I love that sentence.)
Logged

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #336 on: 11 Nov 2012, 09:13 »

Did you know that the Nth word in that sentence is N characters long?
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #337 on: 11 Nov 2012, 10:01 »

Holy shit. 1-20, that's crazy impressive.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #338 on: 11 Nov 2012, 13:58 »

Zing, you never fail to surprise me with how excellent you are.
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

Barmymoo

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,926
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #339 on: 11 Nov 2012, 13:58 »

Wait, that sounded like a back-handed compliment. I meant that you just keep getting more so. I always expect you to peak and it just doesn't happen.
Logged
There's this really handy "other thing" I'm going to write as a footnote to my abstract that I can probably explore these issues in. I think I'll call it my "dissertation."

TheEvilDog

  • Guest
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #340 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:13 »

My maths lecturer had the worst handwriting imaginable. Basically, it was like she went up to the whiteboard, let her hand become possessed by some demonic headless chicken and wrote equations.

It got to the stage where half the lecture was spent by us asking what she had written and her getting more and more annoyed. This wasn't a case of people not understanding the equations, but rather her complete ineptitude of explaining what was going on and covering it with squiggles. We tried speaking to our chief lecturer about it but there wasn't any chance of changing lecturers, there wasn't any budget.

I had to repeat the class the next year, although the instant I found she was teaching maths again, I dropped out and went to a different college. Worked out in my favour I think.
Logged

Akima

  • WoW gold miner on break
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,523
  • ** 妇女能顶半边天 **
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #341 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:19 »

Holy shit. 1-20, that's crazy impressive.
It is, but trancendentalize is a word only a Dalek would love.

I love statistics; does that make me weird, or just a few standard deviations away from the mean?
Logged
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned." Richard Feynman

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #342 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:25 »

Above the mean, I think! 

That's my hypothesis, and I'm stickin' to it! 
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Pilchard123

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,131
  • I always name them Bitey.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #343 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:27 »

Naw, stats is (are?) fun - or at the very least interesting. Well, the numbers themselves aren't, but poking them so see what they mean and can do is.

Also, xkcd.com/1132/
Logged
Piglet wondered how it was that every conversation with Eeyore seemed to go wrong.

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #344 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:30 »

That one was pretty funny, but it's not how p-values work...

I put this on the cover of all my stats final exams;




Most of them get the joke...
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Mr. Doctor

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,323
  • X-Ray Rod
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #345 on: 11 Nov 2012, 14:36 »

At the beginning of each semester, I apologize to my students, and tell them that, "If at any time you can't read what I've written, please be sure to stop me.  Odds are, no one else can read it either, and sometimes even I can't read it..."

Hey... At least you warn your students. My Discrete mathematics teacher did not. It's also worth saying that he writes very fast while speaking fast as well so people get freaked out while taking notes. Only after the 10th time someone said "can you please tell me what did you write over there?" and we got this:
"Yeah, I know I write terribly... Oh well, in a month you should get used to it. Let's continue!"

He's VERY lucky that he's a nice guy... My stats teacher also writes quite poorly but my DM teacher is just ridiculous since he writes in friggin cursive. I remember my teachers had a problem with me many years ago because my cursive sucked... So I just stopped writing that way and all was good with the world.
Logged

Zingoleb

  • Guest
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #346 on: 11 Nov 2012, 15:33 »

I found recently that I can't write in cursive anymore. I forget how, and it ends up jerky and looks like me writing things out at the age of 2 again. That makes me sad, especially since I just found some nice calligraphy pens.
Logged

Method of Madness

  • His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
  • Globe Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,461
  • The Bootysattva
    • Me!
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #347 on: 11 Nov 2012, 18:17 »

The only thing I ever write in cursive is my name.  Strictly speaking, I don't have a signature, I just write my name in cursive.  One could say that there's no difference but my signature will look at least a little different each time.  There's no muscle memory, it's just me writing my name, since I don't have to sign my name terribly often.
Logged
They call me Mr. Madness.

Quote from: Polonius
Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.
MR ARCHIVE-FU MADNESS
Does anybody really know what time it is?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

riccostar

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
  • Goddamned stoner cat.
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #348 on: 11 Nov 2012, 18:22 »

That makes me sad, especially since I just found some nice calligraphy pens.
I actually just took up cursive again on account of having gotten myself a fountain pen. 
Logged
if it's probable that you're going to "die trying"
you might want to rethink your plan...

bainidhe_dub

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,445
    • tumblr
Re: There oughta be a law!
« Reply #349 on: 11 Nov 2012, 18:23 »

Zingoleb, you should practice so you can make pretty things with the pens. The other day I found an all-glass calligraphy pen in a box in my attic. I had completely forgotten about it. I should practice with it too...
My signature is my name in cursive but then I start leaving out letters towards the end. So it comes out more like Rosemay WestK.
Logged
I am lurking so hard right now. You have no idea.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Up