|
SoCoder -> Link Home -> Videos |
|
|
|
|
Afr0
|
The Legend of ZeldaZelda - The Movie!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54eG9o37R0&feature=related |
|
Probably the most elaborate April Fool's ever. Do want! |
|
|
|
|
Comments |
|
| Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 06:01 | |
|
mole |
Wooooow  Awesome
|
| Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 11:48 | |
Mog
|
Old.
|
| Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 13:24 | |
Jayenkai
|
Yeah, that's old. Ya, boo, sucks. Stupid old stuff. Doesn't belong here. We prefer modern stuff, like polls about 1980's Basic Keywords.
|
| Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 13:31 | |
Phoenix
|
I hadn't seen it before, so at least I'm happy you posted it. Haha, I almost enjoyed Jay's sardonic quip more than the video.
|
| Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 19:24 | |
|
Mog
|
<~1990 >~2009 Them's the rules for oldness. Anything within those lines are too fresh of memory; thus, we need not be reminded.
|
| Thursday, 22 April 2010, 12:29 | |
JL235
|
Mog  <~1990 >~2009 Shouldn't that be the other way around? > 1990 and < 2009. |
| Thursday, 22 April 2010, 17:43 | |
|
Mog
|
No, i'm showing the inclusive range of things that are not old. Anything before 1990 is 'retro', therefor can be mentioned, and anything past 2009, since it's fairly recent.
|
| Thursday, 22 April 2010, 18:00 | |
|
JL235
|
No, I meant in yours you put '<~1990 (pre 1990)' and '>~2009' (post 2009) as being 'them rules for oldness'. I'm saying your < and > should be the other way around.
|
| Friday, 23 April 2010, 01:14 | |
|
Mog
|
No, they're right. I'm saying anything between 1990 and 2009 are deemed old.
|
| Monday, 26 April 2010, 13:51 | |
|
CodersRule |
Yes, Mog is saying that posting something like 'Legend of Zelda-Heart for the Hero' would just be pathetic.
|
| Monday, 26 April 2010, 15:30 | |
|
JL235
|
Mog Between 1990 and 2009 would be > 1990 (after 1990) and < 2009 (before 2009). You posted the other way around as being old: < 1990 and > 2009. My point stands.
I'm saying anything between 1990 and 2009 are deemed old. |
| Monday, 26 April 2010, 18:50 | |
|
Mog
|
If BEFORE 1990, it is retro If AFTER 2009, it is fresh Oldness is inclusive. So anything between 1990 and 2009 is old, anything before is old enough to be relevant again, and anything past could be new enough that not everyone and their relatives can quote it. Think really really REALLY hard about it and re-read the multiple times i've explained it. Your way will work, but it's not my point. Either is valid in the right context.
|
| Monday, 26 April 2010, 19:21 | |
|
JL235
|
Mog I fully agree (and agreed in my first comment). This was not what I was debating. I was debating your use of < and >, as I believe you had them the wrong way around.Oldness is inclusive. So anything between 1990 and 2009 is old, anything before is old enough to be relevant again, and anything past could be new enough that not everyone and their relatives can quote it.You said: Mog <~1990 >~2009Them's the rules for oldness. <~1990 == Pre 1990. It's a 'rule for oldness', so anything pre 1990 (by your definition) is old. >~2009 == Post 2009. Another 'rule for oldness', so anything post 2009 (by your definition) is old. Hence why they should be the other way around: >~1990 and <~2009. They would be the 'rules for oldness'. '<~1990 >~2009' are the rules for newness (retro and fresh). Am I the only one who thinks this is incorrect??? Either way it was only meant as pointing out a minor typo, nothing more. |
| Tuesday, 27 April 2010, 14:07 | |
|
CodersRule |
DD is right, I figured that out with Between 1990 and 2009 would be > 1990 (after 1990) and < 2009 (before 2009). You posted the other way around as being old: < 1990 and > 2009. My point stands. But I was too lazy to post that DD is right. XD
|
| Tuesday, 27 April 2010, 14:30 | |
|
Mog
|
Whatever, it's pedantic to keep trying to argue my point over a simple logic problem.
|
| Wednesday, 28 April 2010, 13:57 | |
|
CodersRule |
< means less than and > means greater than. Was that your problem? XD
|
| Wednesday, 28 April 2010, 19:53 | |
|
Mog
|
I was trying to say anything outside of those are not old. Maybe i should have explained it to the nth degree, but it's over with now.
|
| Wednesday, 28 April 2010, 21:37 | |
|
JL235
|
Then you shouldn't have said that they were the rules for being old. I agree tho, this is pedantic. |
| Wednesday, 28 April 2010, 23:37 | |
|
Mog
|
it was a joke, not a fucking invitation for logic class 101.
|
| Thursday, 29 April 2010, 10:25 | |
|
JL235
|
Mog it was a joke, not a fucking invitation for logic class 101.I was just pointing out a typo. I tried to re-explain myself because you didn't get my original point. That's all it was; don't take it personally! : ) |
|
|
| |||||
|
| ||||||