Posts from Sacred Haven of Debauchery

Is this supposed to be a funny, amusing, or entertaining post?

And what about this one?.. And what about my pie?
I'm indignant!

No. And why do you think it has to be funny? There aren't any smiles, are there?

Heh... Guys, stop causing trouble! Let's just chat casually while no one's watching))) As you wish: a quote from UkrBash:
watching k1
Keihi's little tiger is hungry and won't miss a single carcass
subtitles below:
Kei's little tiger is hungry and won't miss a single carcass
Ukrainian rules))))))))

Aaa... So you're a serious guy now?) What a change) It's nice to see)
P.S. Does a post only become funny if it has a bunch of parentheses and emoticons?

a post from them doesn't become funny; it's just an indicator (whether it's funny or not).

So, if %username% doesn't add "X)" or "XD", the post becomes serious and not funny.

what do others have to do with it?
I was talking about myself... if I'm joking (or it's a joke in itself), I use parentheses and smileys, but if it's a normal post, I don't use anything.
although there are exceptions, and I sometimes use parentheses in normal posts (for example, like today about movies)

P.S. as for others, I don't know how they do it... I've seen posts with a lot of parentheses, but they're not funny at all.

Well... Sometimes, if a post is written with irony, then emoticons can only be superfluous, although the post itself can be quite amusing.

I don't often use emoticons, and sometimes people are just plain dense, but that's their problem, and I hate it. Sometimes it's quite amusing to watch their reaction when they can't distinguish irony and sarcasm from a serious post.

I agree, it's funny =Ъ
Areg, you put parentheses everywhere, regardless of whether the post is funny or not.

Yes, that's for sure now))))))))

There's a wonderful magazine that publishes biographies of famous, or rather, outstanding people every week, and I was recently browsing through its archives online. I noticed that, with a few exceptions, there are hardly any women featured, and there isn't a single female philosopher, only the scientist Curie. Isn't that strange? You could attribute it to history and the lack of equality, but that's not entirely accurate. It's more likely that we need to look at psychology, or even deeper, at biology. In my life, I've met talented girls, girls with interesting ways of thinking, but I've never met a truly intelligent girl (don't jump to conclusions, read to the end). Here, by "intelligent," I mean not the depth of judgment, but intelligence as a tool, an innate ability to analyze, logical thinking, and so on. A person with even a basic understanding of psychology and physiognomy can determine the presence of these qualities. It's important to understand that I'm not saying that women are incapable of analysis; it's just that men, who initially have a more developed intellect, make up the vast majority, but out of 100, only 5 truly think, while the other 95 can be intelligent scientists, intelligent businessmen, intelligent lawyers, etc. (more on this later). But it should be understood that men and women are completely different organisms, and comparing them is not appropriate. You know, who experiences mutations first? Men. And that's perfectly logical. A woman is a mother; she is the foundation. She will raise future children, and she will decide who is worthy of being their father because a man may not evolve; on the contrary, he may degenerate (which is also evolution), and it is the woman who determines whether these qualities should be passed on to future generations or not. Therefore, mutations occur first in men and then in women. The development of logic and intellect is also a micro-mutation. However, women have better hearing from childhood, they distinguish shades of color better, and they see proportions better, while men analyze more, and women are more likely to notice and observe. Do you see where I'm going with this? Yes, to the fact that when the ideas of equality became established, there were many talented female artists, female musicians, female sculptors, architects, and simply creatively gifted women, and what was more common among men 20 centuries ago is now done by women. And personally, I think that's a very good thing. Now, let's look at the same situation from a psychological point of view. A man is the one who must stand out so that a woman considers him worthy of being the father of her children. In our time, the strength and agility of a hunter are replaced by intelligence. A man cannot provide for a family without the ability to analyze. This is now given to a man by nature and developed by society, but this only allows him to achieve success in his profession (those same 95). And finally, an aphorism by Balzac: "A woman who is guided by reason rather than her heart is a real social plague: she has all the flaws of a passionate and loving woman, but none of her virtues; she is without mercy, without love, without virtue, without gender." P.S. Everything I have written is just my subjective opinion based on my observations and analysis, so I am interested in your opinion.

well, I don't know... I didn't see any smiles in your posts on the last pages, did you?
And I already wrote about the exceptions, or should I repeat it again for those with "Exam Syndrome"?

I agree about the sarcasm... and it's also annoying when failed attempts at jokes are presented as something else.

Well, I don't have much to add; he's a good strategist, and she's a good tactician. :)\

P.S. The Exam Syndrome? Oh. Maybe in about fifty years, there will be a Meggot Syndrome? Heh.