 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2008 14:15:13 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:38:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately, I now have a cold. This is not fun or interesting...
>> But common
>
>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>
>Jim
Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:03:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2008 14:15:13 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:38:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Unfortunately, I now have a cold. This is not fun or interesting...
>>> But common
>>
>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>
>>Jim
>
> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2008 17:00:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
>>>> But common
>>>
>>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
>
>Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....
I thought that you might think that I thought Andrew was common. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:16:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2008 17:00:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>>>> But common
>>>>
>>>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
>>
>>Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....
>
> I thought that you might think that I thought Andrew was common. :)
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nice to make your acquaintance, porcupine dude. :)
What the hell, I've bought a digicam myself these days...
this from a lowres video, playing with my daughter on TV... :P
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'me_and_daughter.png' (102 KB)
Preview of image 'me_and_daughter.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47e8f0bf$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
>>
>>> You get extra nerd points for the glasses with a stronger magnification
>>> than an average magnifying glass. ;)
>> ...would you believe me if I told you that when I take them off, I'm
>> virtually blind?
>
>
> I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice. :o/
>
> ~Steve~
>
Yeah, me too.
Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say
roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47e8fd7f@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:47e8f0bf$1@news.povray.org...
>> > Warp wrote:
>> >
>> >> You get extra nerd points for the glasses with a stronger
>> >> magnification
>> >> than an average magnifying glass. ;)
>> >
>> > ...would you believe me if I told you that when I take them off, I'm
>> > virtually blind?
>
>> I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice. :o/
>
> Ever considered LASIK?
>
> It's expensive and not 100% risk-free (no surgery is), but the risks are
> rather small and the results rather effective.
>
> I had glasses, and then LASIK. I haven't regretted it in the slightest.
I have actually. Isn't this the one where a laser cuts a line in 360
segments around the pupil developed by the great Russian scientists in the
early '90's? I considered it because a good friend of mine had that same
laser treatment and he swears that it's fantastic. In fact, he doesn't wear
glasses anymore and says that his eyesight is "brilliant". The thing is, I
don't think he had the same treatment as yourself, (I'll ask him tomorrow if
poss.), but sometimes when I glance at any of his eyes (as you do when
talking), I sometimes see a small circular 'disc' where the pupils are. I'm
wondering if it's all the same thing?
But no, I don't think I want to smell my eyeballs burning right now.
Maybe in the future when I think I won't move my eyes in any direction in
that 60 second time limit. I have a LOT of patience, but I don't think I can
handle that.
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:47ea4ba0@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice. :o/
> Yeah, me too.
>
> Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say
> roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.
Yes, same here. Everything looks SO sharp close-up when I take my
glasses off. Long distance though, well, without my glasses, I wouldn't have
a driving license that's for sure. :o/
The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of
our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all. Are we to be blind one
day because we no longer need them? (Some deep sea fish have lived like this
for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get better as time travels on? *X-Ray
Vision* :oO
Heh... ;)
~Steve~
>
> --Sherry Shaw
>
>
> --
> #macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
> .3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
> 1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
> [1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of
> our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all. Are we to be blind one
> day because we no longer need them? (Some deep sea fish have lived like this
> for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get better as time travels on? *X-Ray
> Vision* :oO
Apparently you can "see" with your tongue...
Some dude tried hooking up a grid of electrodes to a person's tongue,
and after an hour or two they were able to navigate around a normal
office block without using their eyes.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Some dude tried hooking up a grid of electrodes to a person's tongue,
> and after an hour or two they were able to navigate around a normal
> office block without using their eyes.
>
What were the electrodes connected to? A low res webcam?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Some dude tried hooking up a grid of electrodes to a person's tongue,
>> and after an hour or two they were able to navigate around a normal
>> office block without using their eyes.
>
> What were the electrodes connected to? A low res webcam?
Indeed, yes.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>>> Some dude tried hooking up a grid of electrodes to a person's tongue,
>>> and after an hour or two they were able to navigate around a normal
>>> office block without using their eyes.
>>
>> What were the electrodes connected to? A low res webcam?
>
> Indeed, yes.
Then yup, heard of it.
I also saw a little vibrating device you put on your finger... Connected
to a microphone and an amplifier... It's impressive how much deaf people
"hear" with that thing. Not to the point of hearing loud noises. To the
point of recognizing different music.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> But no, I don't think I want to smell my eyeballs burning right now.
> Maybe in the future when I think I won't move my eyes in any direction in
> that 60 second time limit. I have a LOT of patience, but I don't think I can
> handle that.
It's impossible for a human to keep his eyes completely still for more
than a second or so. That's not a problem though. They use accurate eye
tracking systems when they are lasering you. The laser accurately follows
your eye even if it moves, and if it moves out of range, it immediately
stops.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's impossible for a human to keep his eyes completely still for more
> than a second or so. That's not a problem though. They use accurate eye
> tracking systems when they are lasering you. The laser accurately follows
> your eye even if it moves, and if it moves out of range, it immediately
> stops.
Interesting. I thought they used drugs to paralyse your eye muscles so
you *can't* move 'em...?
Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
doesn't appeal, somehow...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:57:45 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>
>Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
>eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
>doesn't appeal, somehow...
That would not appeal to anyone so they don't do that.
They do something different.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
> eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
> doesn't appeal, somehow...
The eyeballs are not cut open (only the surface of the cornea is
removed), you don't see the laser, and I don't understand what you mean
by "sawing it back together". The surface of the cornea is simply put
back. It attaches itself without the need of any special procedure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
>> eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
>> doesn't appeal, somehow...
>
> The eyeballs are not cut open (only the surface of the cornea is
> removed), you don't see the laser, and I don't understand what you mean
> by "sawing it back together". The surface of the cornea is simply put
> back. It attaches itself without the need of any special procedure.
I saw the whole operation on TV a few days ago. Quite impressive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
> eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
> doesn't appeal, somehow...
NAAAAAAAARGH!!! >_<
God damn it, one friggin' character out, and the entire sentence becomes
gibberish.
Obviously I meant "sew" not "saw"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
>> Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
>> eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
>> doesn't appeal, somehow...
>
> Obviously I meant "sew" not "saw"...
Well there is no way you can *sew* an eye...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> I have actually. Isn't this the one where a laser cuts a line in 360
> segments around the pupil
That's possibly radial keritography or some such spelling. The LASIK I
had, they slice the front of your eye off, peel the flap back, burn away
bits of the cornea underneath, and put the flap back down.
Yes, it was potentially the most uncomfortable 90 seconds of my life.
Yes, you smell your eyeballs burning.
Yes, it's not unlike when the dentist is drilling, except it's your eyes.
Yes, it's probably the best thing I've done medically speaking.
My primary advice is two-fold:
1) It's your eyes. Don't go to the cheapest place. Go to the place where
the doctor has actually invented improvements to the process.
2) Take all the vallium they'll give you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:10:48 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
>> Whatever, the idea of laying on a table while someone cuts open my
>> eyeball, shines a laser into it, and then *saws* it back together
>> doesn't appeal, somehow...
>
> NAAAAAAAARGH!!! >_<
>
> God damn it, one friggin' character out, and the entire sentence becomes
> gibberish.
>
> Obviously I meant "sew" not "saw"...
Much more fun with "saw", since it's just about exactly the opposite
meaning. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Obviously I meant "sew" not "saw"...
And they do no such thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:24 -0000, St. <dot### [at] dotcom> did spake,
saying:
>
> "Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:47ea4ba0@news.povray.org...
>> St. wrote:
>
>
>>> I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice. :o/
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>>
>> Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say
>> roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.
>
> Yes, same here. Everything looks SO sharp close-up when I take my
> glasses off. Long distance though, well, without my glasses, I wouldn't
> have a driving license that's for sure. :o/
Without my glasses things come into sharp focus at about 10cm I'd have
made a fortune as a Babylonian seal maker :-)
> The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of
> our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all.
Oh yeah magnificent - jiggling around all the time because all the sensors
are plugged in back-to front and the wires have to go somewhere, high
processing overhead to deal with the filtering effects caused by said
wiring, susceptible to fractional errors leading to out of focus images,
laughably poor night-vision and a pathetically small visible range of the
EM spectrum. If someone built a camera like that you'd ask for your money
back.
> Are we to be blind one day because we no longer need them? (Some deep
> sea fish have lived like this for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get
> better as time travels on? *X-Ray Vision* :oO
>
> Heh... ;)
I recall a short story by Asimov/Dick/Anthony which included a forced
acceleration of human evolution, blind, toothless, hairless and nailless.
Our fingers grew larger and both more dextrous and sensitive and we could
still see/sense our surroundings (it doesn't go into details but suggests
some form of ESP, but it could easily have been the equivalent of sonar).
So that's something to look forward to :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> So where is your second head? You look too normal for a geek :)
Er... thank you?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know, I think this hairstyle makes me look ridiculous, but almost
everybody I've shown this photograph to really likes it. Hmm...
There's an old saying. "If your mum likes the music you bought, you've
bought bad music." Well, my mum *really* likes this hairstyle. Surely
that's a clear indicator that I should never, ever wear it again?
Anyway, I am *hoping* to arrange another social trip this Friday.
[Nobody seems to have noticed, but in the past month I've spent a *hell*
of a lot of time outside, and in pubs, talking animatedly to other
humans.] I am hoping that a certain young lady who I quite like will be
there.
My friend [the same one who pimped me out in this photo] insists that I
should recreate this look.
What say you, POV-Ray?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:54:38 +0100 schrieb Invisible:
> My friend [the same one who pimped me out in this photo] insists that I
> should recreate this look.
>
> What say you, POV-Ray?
Listen to yourself, this hairstyle looks plain stupid. It's just not you,
I'd say.
A long time ago you posted a picture of your Nerv clan with you in it,
AFAIR you looked much better then, more natural.
To conclude with a beaten phrase, you want the lad(y|ies) like you for
what you are, not what you look like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My friend [the same one who pimped me out in this photo] insists that I
> should recreate this look.
Maybe it will work for picking up those 18 year olds you were out last week
with, but it looks a little, ermmm, "young" to me. I think if you were
aiming for a relationship with someone more your age then they would
appreciate something not so "radical" ;-) Just go to a decent hair shop (ie
not one that you pay a fiver for some guy to shave your head) and ask them
to cut it for you - you can't really go wrong then.
Just my 2 cents.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Maybe it will work for picking up those 18 year olds you were out last
> week with, but it looks a little, ermmm, "young" to me.
Hmm... if only I'd tried learning to be normal back when I *was* young. :-(
I don't know, sometimes I just think to myself that old men like me
aren't really "supposed" to be out dating girls. You're supposed to do
that when you're a teenager, or at best early 20s, find the girl you
want, marry her, and spend the rest of your life together. It seems I've
left it a little late.
[Seriously. Everybody I know of seems to be getting married. All of the
girls I've ever tried to go out with are married now. My sister is
always going to her friends' weddings.]
On the other hand, I guess I could simply pretend I didn't just have
this thought, and carry on my merry way as if nothing ever happened? :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:51:04 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> So where is your second head? You look too normal for a geek :)
>
>Er... thank you?
You're welcome
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:
> It's just not you, I'd say.
Why should one care what "is just not me", especially in this case?
I have hard time believing that he has a stylistic reputation to maintain.
He's not a world-famous fashion designer or anything like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Er... thank you?
>
> You're welcome
You were expecting maybe two heads or something?
Seriously, my face is one of the most abnormal things I've seen in a
long time. I find it a little surprising when somebody does it doesn't
look that unusual...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:20:35 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>You were expecting maybe two heads or something?
Only from the way you talk about yourself :)
>Seriously, my face is one of the most abnormal things I've seen in a
>long time. I find it a little surprising when somebody does it doesn't
>look that unusual...
Well I've only seen the one photograph and it was face on. You look as
if you have a strong face, quite manly in fact. "And for those who
like that sort of thing that is the sort of thing they like."
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Well I've only seen the one photograph and it was face on. You look as
> if you have a strong face, quite manly in fact. "And for those who
> like that sort of thing that is the sort of thing they like."
My name - Andrew - is apparently from the Greek "Andreas", meaning "manly".
I am the least masculine male I know of. Presumably because I dislike
what being male stands for - violence, selfishness and brute strength.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:ulf9v3pn5f7550tcrkmflu0co892gkg6vp@4ax.com...
> Well I've only seen the one photograph and it was face on. You look as
> if you have a strong face, quite manly in fact.
Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as in
FarCry - Jack Carver.
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/carnage/farcry/duze/FarCry75.jpg
~Steve~
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as in
> FarCry - Jack Carver.
Is my taste in shirts really *that* bad?? :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f4c4e0$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as
>> in FarCry - Jack Carver.
>
> Is my taste in shirts really *that* bad?? :-S
LOL! Not that I'm aware of, but you do have that manly square jawbone,
strong features, etc. The ladies should be swarming over you! :)
And btw, I like that hair style. My lad does the same thing, but seems to
change it every day. Well, he is 18...
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is my taste in shirts really *that* bad?? :-S
>
> LOL! Not that I'm aware of, but you do have that manly square jawbone,
> strong features, etc. The ladies should be swarming over you! :)
So... where are they? :-P
Actually, wait... at that party, somebody's mum *did* say I was quite
sweet. "But very serious though... which is OK of course..." I have no
idea what made her say that - I was standing there casually smiling and
feeling pretty relaxed. Go figure!
> And btw, I like that hair style. My lad does the same thing, but seems to
> change it every day. Well, he is 18...
Hmm. I used to be 18. Ten *years* ago!
*whimpers softly*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> old men like me
HAhahahahaahahaha.
Dude, even my gf's grandad is still out dating women and he's over 70!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> HAhahahahaahahaha.
Somebody laughing at me. Well this is a new experience...
> Dude, even my gf's grandad is still out dating women and he's over 70!
o_O
Damn. My grandad just married his first girlfriend...
[Mind you, joking apart, I was looking at some old photographs a while
back, and HOT DAMN! My grandparents were both white-hot when they were
young... Jesus!]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Damn. My grandad just married his first girlfriend...
So did this guy, until his wife died a few years ago.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:49:04 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>My name - Andrew - is apparently from the Greek "Andreas", meaning "manly".
>
Well mine is Stephen which is crown/garland so I have flowers in my
hair. Hmm that explains the bees :)
>I am the least masculine male I know of. Presumably because I dislike
>what being male stands for - violence, selfishness and brute strength.
I've done some manly type jobs I admit :) but so have women ???
I know what you mean about that stereotype. I don't like them myself.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:50:03 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as in
>FarCry - Jack Carver.
>
> http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/carnage/farcry/duze/FarCry75.jpg
>
I see what you mean ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as in
>> FarCry - Jack Carver.
>
> I see what you mean ;)
OK, this is topped only by that time I did that really bad self
portrate, and everybody kept telling me how lifelike it is. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:24:04 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>OK, this is topped only by that time I did that really bad self
>portrate, and everybody kept telling me how lifelike it is. :-S
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f4da80@news.povray.org...
>>> Actually, I think Andrew looks like the very person he's playing as
>>> in FarCry - Jack Carver.
>>
>> I see what you mean ;)
>
> OK, this is topped only by that time I did that really bad self portrate,
> and everybody kept telling me how lifelike it is. :-S
:o) That's gotta be a sig lol!
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> :o) That's gotta be a sig lol!
I've heard of SIG_HUP and SIG_PIPE, but I'm not familiar with SIG_LOL...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f4e227$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> :o) That's gotta be a sig lol!
>
> I've heard of SIG_HUP and SIG_PIPE, but I'm not familiar with SIG_LOL...
Heh, damn comma's disappearing again... <mutter, mutter> ;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> :o) That's gotta be a sig lol!
>> I've heard of SIG_HUP and SIG_PIPE, but I'm not familiar with SIG_LOL...
>
> Heh, damn comma's disappearing again... <mutter, mutter> ;)
Maybe they should add functionallity to InitV such that if it receives a
SIG_LOL, it plays a sample of a demented madman laughing hysterically?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:24:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> HAhahahahaahahaha.
>
> Somebody laughing at me. Well this is a new experience...
Well, that's a reasonable reaction to 28 being an "old man". (This from
someone who's 10 years your senior, I remind you.....)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What say you, POV-Ray?
>
Well, since you asked . . .
It's not that bad of a hair style, really.
From the picture alone, if you showed up at a pub or party here, I
would have probably put your age at about 22 to 25. The younger college
students here tend to be as clean shaven as they can manage, I don't
know if that's a local trend or what. The grad students just don't have
that kind of free time.
If you want to look your age, I agree with scott. Hit a hair stylist and
ask them to to fix your hair and tell you how to do it yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
