Guess Who Wrote This? - A PF Game

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
In summary: The plain sight effect is when people talk about a person or topic without them actually being involved. This happens when people are so mesmerized by the person or topic that they are not paying attention to their surroundings. This can be a dangerous thing because it can allow people to be fooled. In summary, the game is to try and guess who posted a quote from a search for PF post in a given forum. The first person to get it right supplies another quote. The game is made easier by the requirement that the quote be from a common poster. There is a rule that the quote cannot be from the poster. The game is ended when someone supplies a quote that is not from a poster.
  • #36
Originally posted by Tsunami
While you're waiting, try this one...

Entropy in general ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Zantra
Entropy in general ?
In General DISCUSSION?
-or are you saying 'this just sounds like entropy in general'?:wink:

Peace, man.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Tsunami
In General DISCUSSION?
-or are you saying 'this just sounds like entropy in general'?:wink:

Peace, man.

Both
 
  • #39
He was talking to me in that quote so I know it was eNtRopY.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Zantra
Both
Ah...
In that case, yes and no. :wink:
 
  • #41
Originally posted by BoulderHead
He was talking to me in that quote so I know it was eNtRopY.

Yes, but... where?
(and with WHAT? :wink:-Jus' kiddin'-God, I loved Clue as a kid!)
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Tsunami
Yes, but... where?
(and with WHAT? :wink:-Jus' kiddin'-God, I loved Clue as a kid!)

So I got that one right?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Zantra
So I got that one right?
Correct. Now which forum was it in?

Dang! I didn't mean to snag the thread up like this! Do you want me to take it outta here to another thread? (Isn't there a Harry Potter thing hanging out there somewhere? Looking... YEAH! Greg! Are you out there? Zooby says Zantra!)
 
  • #44
It could only be said in general forum. No clue on the when
 
  • #45
the answer to the harry potter thing is selfAdjoint in mystics and pseudo science, my thread about magic.

i haven't been around here long enough to think of any funny quotes like yall have found, so one of you other nice people can just post one for me
 
  • #46
Who posted?:
"Electrons don't go to school to learn quantum mechanics"
 
  • #47
Hmmmm...I'm going to guess Mr.Robin Parsons.
 
  • #48
Nope. Hint: Was at PF2
 
  • #49
Let's see... got to be Philosophy Forum, replying to one of Alexander's everything is physics I think...

Gee, I'm scared it might be me.

I am guessing LW Sleeth, but could be LG..
 
  • #50
Oh, people, can't you remember him? A great hater of all that include the word quantum
 
  • #51
Ah! Morp! It's morp, the guy who thought QM was a conspiracy specifically designed to confuse him...

Presuming I am right...

"Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God."
 
  • #52
In case you're right I'd have to laugh loudly and shout out loud: LIFEGAZER

If that is correct, try this one;

"Even so, the radio is only a receptacle. In which case how do we know that our mind is not just a receptacle either? Or, say part of a "grand stage," where everything is broadcast live? ... and we're just part of the "live" entertainment."
 
  • #53
Boulderhead, the answer to yours
is: Rene DesCartes.
 
  • #54
Bingo! It was morp in theory development
 
  • #55
Ah, FZ was right and I'm nearly 100% certain the quote FZ posted had to be from LG, so it is possible that I've got the ball again.

Sorry zoobyshoe, but that was not the member I pulled the quote from.
 
  • #56
Here is another big, long, hint;

"As for the number 666, what it represents is two thirds, and hence the second of three degrees: the first being 0 to 333, the second being 334 to 666, and the third being 667 to 1000. Which would be about right, for if you portrayed a symmetrical cross, where the top, bottom, left and right (sections) were equal in length, then by adding "an extension" equal in length at the base, you would have these same three degrees portrayed by the height of the cross: where the first two degrees (666 and below) exist below the horizontal plane, or "cross beam," and the third degree (667 and above) exists above it. So in this respect the number 217 (as opposed to 216) would be similar to 667."

When I read this only one member comes to my mind. How about you?
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Tsunami
Correct. Now which forum was it in?

Dang! I didn't mean to snag the thread up like this! Do you want me to take it outta here to another thread? (Isn't there a Harry Potter thing hanging out there somewhere? Looking... YEAH! Greg! Are you out there? Zooby says Zantra!)

Not to side track but going back to that entropy quote, I'll go with philophy forums- though I find that hard to believe- I didn't see him in there much- of course he left just as I was getting started
 
  • #58
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here is another big, long, hint;

"As for the number 666, what it represents is two thirds, and hence the second of three degrees: the first being 0 to 333, the second being 334 to 666, and the third being 667 to 1000. Which would be about right, for if you portrayed a symmetrical cross, where the top, bottom, left and right (sections) were equal in length, then by adding "an extension" equal in length at the base, you would have these same three degrees portrayed by the height of the cross: where the first two degrees (666 and below) exist below the horizontal plane, or "cross beam," and the third degree (667 and above) exists above it. So in this respect the number 217 (as opposed to 216) would be similar to 667."

When I read this only one member comes to my mind. How about you?

This sounds a little like Qantumcarl, except that he usually makes more sense and this thing is just bizzare.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Zantra
Not to side track but going back to that entropy quote, I'll go with philophy forums- though I find that hard to believe- I didn't see him in there much- of course he left just as I was getting started

Nope. It was in How Stuff Works. Here's another of my favorites:

Who said this?

"I once got drunk with some illegal aliens. Then I think I lost my car for about six hours."
 
  • #60
Artman,
It was not QC.
 
  • #61
Could people focus on 1 quote rather than several quotes.
 
  • #62
BH: Sounds like Iaachus in Philosophy I think. Barring that, religion.

Right about LG of course. It is obviously from the start of LG's infamous "Proof for the existence of god..."

Maybe we are getting too many philosophy ones?
 
  • #63
FZ,
Yes, it was Iaachus in religion. :smile:
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Tsunami
Nope. It was in How Stuff Works. Here's another of my favorites:

Who said this?

"I once got drunk with some illegal aliens. Then I think I lost my car for about six hours."

I remember this one well. Ivan
Seeking in mystics & pseudo
 
  • #65
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I remember this one well. Ivan
Seeking in mystics & pseudo

Ya that one was pretty trasparent- I could have easily made the same guess (so why didn't I?..grrrr)
 
  • #66
Uh... is it my go?

"That Crusader was a particular example that made me mention Runsfeld...when ever a raving, slobbering hawk like Rumsfeld sees a problem, it must be HUGE."
 
  • #67
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here is another big, long, hint;

"As for the number 666, what it represents is two thirds, and hence the second of three degrees: the first being 0 to 333, the second being 334 to 666, and the third being 667 to 1000. Which would be about right, for if you portrayed a symmetrical cross, where the top, bottom, left and right (sections) were equal in length, then by adding "an extension" equal in length at the base, you would have these same three degrees portrayed by the height of the cross: where the first two degrees (666 and below) exist below the horizontal plane, or "cross beam," and the third degree (667 and above) exists above it. So in this respect the number 217 (as opposed to 216) would be similar to 667."

When I read this only one member comes to my mind. How about you?

It reminds me of one of our faviorite crackpots, he's been gone for a long time, Fellow called himself Donde, had his own definition of Pi.
 
  • #68
It reminds me of one of our faviorite crackpots, he's been gone for a long time, Fellow called himself Donde, had his own definition of Pi.
Did he insist that (Pi)(rround), not square?


Originally posted by FZ+
Uh... is it my go?

"That Crusader was a particular example that made me mention Runsfeld...when ever a raving, slobbering hawk like Rumsfeld sees a problem, it must be HUGE."
Was it Njorl?
(the word 'hawk' makes me think of him)
 
  • #69
Nope.
 
  • #70
Fz+

Was it that incendiary Danish guy
who had that long thread going
about how Americans are culturally
inferior?
 

Similar threads

Starfield: New First-Person Epic Role-Playing Game by BGS
Replies
9
Views
2K
Largest Number Game - Start at 1!
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Has this Twitter account been hacked?
Replies
12
Views
1K
That old game I just can't remember the name of
Replies
12
Views
2K
MHB Serpents and Stairs Trading Card Game
Replies
1
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Sci-Fi (5/18-5/24)
Replies
24
Views
3K
Who Will Guess the Least Popular Number?
Replies
30
Views
4K
Forum game: Finding the Golden Record
Replies
1
Views
2K
Are Logic Games Necessary for Success on the LSAT?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top