Features

kahljorn · #1

Day of media observances:
gabby cacaface how did you do it?

well i was talking to my severely mongoloid retarded best friend rite and i was like hey how u doin mongo want anything?

and he was all, "grbldegak gak yittle"

and i was all whoa mongo calm down i was just asking if you wanted me to get you anyuthing!

YURTLE PLAT COF

oh you just want some coffee!

and then it struck me sometimes people have misunderstandings and they repeat themselves to get the point across!
This was really a breakthrough for me because I always thought when people repeated themselves they were giving me coded directions to the holy grail.
Hopefully i can share this with everyone and then we'll all realize the Holy Grail is within us waiting to be filled with the salty liquid of answered questions and true understanding!

Gabby GaGa · #2

I have a friend who's already putting together a messageboard book.
but im sure they could always use some (profitable) help.

Kahl -

religion was one of many subjects i picked

these are 3 of 20 catagories and sub-catagories I chose

Religon
- history belief, practices
American history -
kenndy isn't dead
Quail is president
biology -
metabolism, growth, life cycle.

These are all argument presented to subjects for them to "disprove"

this is also a helful study because it provides an outline for illogical rationalization, and methods that subjects use to cope.

My favorite was a study I did for the pop culture reference crowd,

In which the argument was that Elvis wasn't dead, and some current idols are robots.

Of course, any common ninny can figure out this isn't true.
However, when a linguist debates the argument with the test subject,
(which i either myself or a selection of Drs.)
we try to use one of two methods, which will extract an the desiered or unknown patterns.
The "elvis and kennedy aren't dead" scenerios are the easiest to debate, because of the copious amounts of contradictions available for refference.
That study is the one in which an illogical argument will unvariably "win"
so the person gives their efforted but failing answer.

The second study is the one in which the subject should always win the argument, because of the sheer stupidy of the it. This path is intersting too, because the even though the argument presented is nonsensical and easily argued, subjects often percieve a threat to their own personality, and their conscience automatically uses one of four teqniques to cope.

and what was your latest project, Kahl?