Why Tabasco is sold in 2oz bottles

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:smile: :sad: :eek: :shock: :cool: :-x :razz: :oops: :evil: :twisted: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :mrgreen:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Why Tabasco is sold in 2oz bottles

by AArdvark » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:02 am

Two ounces aren't enough. Must be larger then airplane bottles for it to work.


THE
SCOVILLE PERFUME
AARDVARK

by ChainGangGuy » Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:46 am

It has become obvious we're in desperate need for some approach to get this thread back on track. Any ideas? Sure, we would never win any such review by the OWL board to reinstate our certification (though I've optimistically sent that request), but, perhaps we can still make some exciting discoveries regarding Tabasco being sold in scant two-ounce bottles.

by Tdarcos » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:18 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Paul, this thread and the Elite thread are two threads that you have ruined.

They were enjoyable threads that you have turned into a wasteland.

Why's it gotta be like this? Why can't you admit that sometimes you have nothing to contribute to the thread and then NOT post in it? Why's it gotta be like this?
Because when this is discovered, there is no means to remove the erroneous material, if necessary, moving it somewhere else. And apparently you want it impossible to remove extraneous and/or unnecessary material. You have so stated that you want it this way. You and you alone have the exclusive power to change this state of affairs any time you want it to be changed.

And by the way, there are threads I do not respond to because I do not have anything to say.

by Ice Cream Jonsey » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:30 pm

Paul, this thread and the Elite thread are two threads that you have ruined.

They were enjoyable threads that you have turned into a wasteland.

Why's it gotta be like this? Why can't you admit that sometimes you have nothing to contribute to the thread and then NOT post in it? Why's it gotta be like this?

by Flack » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:07 am

pinback wrote:Look, I've provided some excellent hot sauce-related content around here lately, and am getting even less response than your average Don Rogers show.

I will stop talking about it if nobody cares. If that's what's to happen, I will make one final hot sauce thread, in which I state my conclusions after a lifetime spent chasin' heat, and then I will never bring it up again.

Is that what you want? IS IT?

Because it's kind of what I want! So that's cool! Hopefully we can all agree on this.
I started this thread in early March. The first response (yours) came 18 weeks later at the end of July. My plan was to craft a witty response and post it mid-November, until Spinner came along and dripped diarrhea all over it.

by Flack » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:04 am

On today's show, the boys struggle with someone's sanity.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:39 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:You proceed, with no evidence, proof or justification, to trash my opinion. You have absolutely nothing to dispute my statement, and yet you proceed to trash me for making it.
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/raindropsizes.html
http://spikesworld.spike-jamie.com/scie ... -size.html
http://www.livescience.com/7809-raindro ... sizes.html
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentof ... ops-sizes/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8155883.stm
So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of immediately going into asshole mode and trashing me? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's your usual and customary practice of trying to drive people away from here.

I will note, however, that USGS points out that drops are typically 0.05 mm when they first fall and as they collide with other drops they merge. So I think my original statement that rain drops are the same size can be clarified by saying "Rain Drops are all the same size when they first fall from the cloud, then become larger as they collide with others, until they become too large and split." I stand corrected. And I did it in <s>8</s> 5 lines. Half size.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:29 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote: Were you born an asshole or did you have to train for it?
You just replied to the same post twice within a 20 minute period.

You are completely insane.
I am not insane. I am simply mad because I asked a simple question, "What is OWL certification with respect to this BBS since it is not referring to the usual and customary definition, which is church certification for sexuality training?" This is a question you should have been able to answer - if you actually had an answer - in a simple response in maybe 5 lines.

Instead of answering, you've been deflecting in full-on attack mode, attacking me for asking the question, and saying I'm too stupid to understand the answer. That's clearly a red flag indicating you don't have an answer.

In the alternative, you simply could have said it was a joke and there is no such thing. But if that is the case, apparently you're too gutless to admit it.

When I was asked about my mistake in the Waffles video about calling the hero antagonist in Die Hard III, "John McCain" instead of "John McClane" I simply admitted it. There's no shame in being wrong, it's the only way we learn anything.

by ChainGangGuy » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:21 am

Let's try to summon danzaland. We need him now more than ever.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:00 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?
Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it,
That's a cop-out, you know it is, and more than that, it's an automatic admission on your part that you can't prove what you claim, plus you know you can't prove it, and rather than simply admit it and accept you're wrong, you try to "blame the victim" for their supposed lack of intelligence instead of admitting you have no response.

This is a slimy and disreputable way of making a point. It's done quite frequently by some minority figures who want to make a point they know is clearly erroneous or unsustainable, and to keep that point from correctly being attacked, they will accuse their opponent (of a different race) of being "racist." It's a brilliant tactic, because it's unanswerable: claim you're not racist and you sound like Richard Nixon claiming he wasn't a crook. So it's used to silence dissent and give the person who can't respond a way to shut down the conversation in a way that silences their critics whose point may be valid. And it's as disgusting a debating trick as yesterday's garbage.
or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.
I never do that much. But look, proceed to make your claim, if you really can, and I will take time, if I disagree with what you say, to make a response not exceeding (approximately) ten lines (the BBS software renders in editing mode differently from display mode, so it may run over by a line or two.)
Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".
No, I'll chalk it off to something you know is wrong, know that you have no proof or evidence to argue against the point, and that knowing this you don't want to admit it, so rather than concede I am right, you simply claim I can't understand it.

Look, I have reason to believe I'm brighter than you think I am. One time my sister asked me what my IQ was. I said that the last time I was tested, I was 12 and my Verbal was 130 and my written was 95, for a net of 115. She said that was impossible. "My IQ is 140 and you're lots smarter than I am."

So let's try it. Present your evidence and to the extent I disagree, I will take the extra time to do a very short response. Presuming you have any evidence, which your continued deflection indicates strongly that you do not.

by ChainGangGuy » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:49 am

pinback wrote:Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it, or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.

Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".
I feel awful for even bringing it up now. :(

by pinback » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:39 am

Tdarcos wrote: Were you born an asshole or did you have to train for it?
You just replied to the same post twice within a 20 minute period.

You are completely insane.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:37 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.
This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?
Were you born an asshole or did you have to train for it?

This is an example of the absolute worst way to comment on someone's statement which you disagree with. You immediately go into hostile, nasty, attack mode. Do you really think (metaphorically) spitting in someone's face is going to make them respond positively?

You could have said your piece, and made your point without anger, hostility or namecalling, and maybe even had a chance to allow someone to learn something. But no, instead of trying to allow the other person to save face and maybe reducing the tension levels, you immediately went into asshole mode and took the low road.

Have you ever considered trying to be polite and communicate, use your presumed intelligence to guide people into understanding, and maybe win them over to your side, instead of causing them to refuse to back down and to respond in knid with anger and more namecalling?

----
"I know I should have kept my mouth shut
When I saw two grand above my car
But I can't back down now
Because I pushed the other guys too far."
- The Beach Boys, Don't Worry Baby

by pinback » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:29 am

Tdarcos wrote:You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?
Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it, or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.

Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".

by pinback » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:27 am

Tdarcos wrote:You proceed, with no evidence, proof or justification, to trash my opinion. You have absolutely nothing to dispute my statement, and yet you proceed to trash me for making it.
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/raindropsizes.html
http://spikesworld.spike-jamie.com/scie ... -size.html
http://www.livescience.com/7809-raindro ... sizes.html
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentof ... ops-sizes/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8155883.stm

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:24 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.
What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.
I propose that Paul be confined both to his wheelchair and his base on Caltrops. Wait, I will turn it into a poll.
You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?

When someone says "NRA" they are almost always talking about the National Rifle Association. If you're talking about the National Restaurant Association you have to make that clear.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:21 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.
This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?
Here is an example of your crass and inept stupidity. You've just stated something stupider than I have. You proceed, with no evidence, proof or justification, to trash my opinion. You have absolutely nothing to dispute my statement, and yet you proceed to trash me for making it.

This is exactly the sort of thing I talk about with the CRs over at Caltrops who proceed to assign me various mental illnesses - all beginning with the letter A - with no evidence or proof.

But you raised the issue, present your evidence to show how it would be trivially obvious to show that water drops coming out of a faucet are different sizes, and how raindrops are different sizes. So go ahead, provide your evidence since it apparently is so obvious that you had to trash me for saying something you claim is stupid on its face.

If what I said is so clearly inept, surely you can immediately and easily justify why you make such a claim.

by pinback » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:16 am

Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.
What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.
I propose that Paul be confined both to his wheelchair and his base on Caltrops. Wait, I will turn it into a poll.

by Tdarcos » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:15 am

pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.
What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.

by pinback » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:12 am

Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.
This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?

Top