Could this be mathier, Nilly?
The Buffy reference is good. But I was kind of leaning toward "Could you Nilly that for me?"
Hauser: You really think you can solve the problem? Come into Wolfram & Hart and make everything right? Turn night into glorious day? You pathetic little fairy. Angel: I'm not little.
'Just Rewards (2)'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
DavidS - Oct 10, 2003 9:47:04 am PDT #5446 of 10005
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Cass - Oct 10, 2003 9:57:02 am PDT #5447 of 10005
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
I was all happy with
Natter 17 = 4^2 - cos(pi): Could this be mathier, Nilly?
or
Natter 17 = 4^2 - cos(pi): Nilly could make this mathier
and then
But I was kind of leaning toward "Could you Nilly that for me?"Hhrrrummpphhh!
Jon B. - Oct 10, 2003 9:59:16 am PDT #5448 of 10005
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
"Could you Nilly that for me?"
I like the phrase, but it doesn't really make sense after the mathy 17 expression. I mean, could you Nilly what for me? The "mathier" line fits better.
Does the t sup tag work? Because I was leaning towards 42-
t edit I guess not.... I was trying to write 4 squared - e to the ip. Oh well....
DXMachina - Oct 10, 2003 9:59:52 am PDT #5449 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
But I was kind of leaning toward "Could you Nilly that for me?"
We do already have a thread that refers to that, though - Nillytown.
DXMachina - Oct 10, 2003 10:00:59 am PDT #5450 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Does the <sup> tag work?
Hee, apparently not.
billytea - Oct 10, 2003 10:07:03 am PDT #5451 of 10005
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
Hee, apparently not.
Don't suppose there's any chance of it being enabled either in time for Natter 17, or just for the purpose of creating the Natter 17 title?
DXMachina - Oct 10, 2003 10:10:17 am PDT #5452 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
It might work in titles.
eta: I tested it. We can use superscripts in titles and slugs.
Jon B. - Oct 10, 2003 10:34:16 am PDT #5453 of 10005
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Interesting. I wonder if thread titles and slugs go through the tag stripping function? Maybe we can use any tags in those fields?
billytea - Oct 10, 2003 10:34:59 am PDT #5454 of 10005
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
eta: I tested it. We can use superscripts in titles and slugs.
Great. In that case, it should assuredly be used here.
DXMachina - Oct 10, 2003 10:37:10 am PDT #5455 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
I wonder if thread titles and slugs go through the tag stripping function?
I'm guessing not.