$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 10:07:57 GMT -5
i hate to continually need to go back to this well, but the original question involved trees and shells that would hypothetically be seen on the surface of the Earth. Not underwater, not under rooftops. In their environments. And that is clearly trees.
So again, you say shells in your home, little toys. Then we count the trees in office buildings. You ask about pieces of shells, and I talk about sticks, which are pieces of trees.
Stop trying to make this more complicated than it is.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 10:08:54 GMT -5
There are many trees obscured from above. They don't count.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 10:14:10 GMT -5
Well, I answered to that too - this would be hypothetically something hovering just above these physical objects on the Earth. Just above the shells on the beach, and the treetops. Again, stop changing things.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 10:16:53 GMT -5
Then why would something indoors not count? If you are hovering just above the object, you would see it.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 10:23:01 GMT -5
If you are hovering above objects outside, you cant get inside. The hovering counting thing would not be opening doors. Again, talking about the surface of the Earth - this excludes indoors.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 10:56:18 GMT -5
Aren't seashells that are on the sand kind of... out of their environment? Going by the name.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 11:48:34 GMT -5
That matters not.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 12:09:29 GMT -5
I'm just saying for argument's sake, that if things underwater dont count... aren't most seashells, you know, under water?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 12:11:59 GMT -5
But that has nothing to do with the original question. The original question - all along, and this has been going on for years now - is what are there more of on the surface of the Earth that is NOT COVERED BY WATER - trees, or seashells. While the answer is obviously trees, there are some that argue that the shells on the beaches alone outnumber said trees.
If we were going to include underwater, the question would be moot. It would be akin to me asking "what are there more of in the FOREST, trees or seashells?"
So, answer the question as is.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 12:15:18 GMT -5
If we're going solely on the earth no in caves, underwater, buried... then it's obviously trees. I can't believe this thread is 8 pages and 3 years long.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 12:22:17 GMT -5
Then you REALLY wont believe that it originally started on the other message board, a couple of years before that.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 12:53:49 GMT -5
Tom has been trying to rig this for years. But it's shells.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 12:54:47 GMT -5
I'm not really reading what he's writing anyways, I keep getting man hands distracted.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 12:56:08 GMT -5
Who's manhands?
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 13:03:51 GMT -5
You had to ask... and if that's not enough I left half the boobie in for good measure. and size comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 20, 2009 13:17:22 GMT -5
Tom has been trying to rig this thing.
And here's why.
I'm not begrudging him the right to exclude underwater or indoors. The question is, on the FACE of the VISIBLE earth, are there more trees than seashells.
But, what Tom doesn't allow is that, when seashells are extracted (whether by man or nature) from the sea, they are vulnerable to damage, breaking.
I submit that this magical hovering device ought to have some sort of magical broken shell resolution system that could identify 10 (arbitrary number) pieces of broken shell, identify them as being once part of the same shell, and count them as ONE (not ten)! I don't think this is at all unreasonable.
Tom doesn't want to allow this, and his argument is, "Then I should be able to count twigs as trees." I've never agreed with this argument because, most likely the parent tree that twig came from is intact somewhere. We're counting trees in their natural habitat versus shells out of theirs - trees are durable and hearty on land, shells are not. You may count fallen trees still in tact if you want, but don't give me that twig crap....at least give the shells a fighting chance.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 13:21:52 GMT -5
I must agree. If you're going to only count shells that are out of their natural environment - then you should count pieces. trees adapt to thrive in all kinds of screwy climates.
THIS is what I'm doing instead of working... man hands and seashells.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 13:40:01 GMT -5
Tom doesn't want to allow this, and his argument is, "Then I should be able to count twigs as trees." I've never agreed with this argument because, most likely the parent tree that twig came from is intact somewhere. We're counting trees in their natural habitat versus shells out of theirs - trees are durable and hearty on land, shells are not. You may count fallen trees still in tact if you want, but don't give me that twig crap....at least give the shells a fighting chance.
First off, instead of trying to give shells a "fighting chance" why not simply agree that I AM CORRECT, and that yes, there are more trees than seashells in the conditions I am describing. You just admitted to trying to rig things against the correct reasoning that I am employing here.
Secondly, I never said TWIGS. I spoke more of logs, or branches. Not twigs. And in that case, the tree may very well NOT be intact. You want to talk about "pieces of shells?" Well, peek into my neighbors yard at the cord of firewood he has against his fence. Speaking of that fence, that is wooden, its also a piece of a tree, come to think of it.
So you still want to talk those semantics? Or do you want to stop trying to fudge shells "a chance" and admit yes, there are more trees than seashells on the surface of the visible Earth.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Mar 20, 2009 13:55:29 GMT -5
Tom hates shells almost as much as he hates the Yankees.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 14:19:02 GMT -5
Still not sure the manhands reference. Who is that? And why are you dealing with her?
If a shell is more than 50 percent in tact, it should count.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 14:22:50 GMT -5
It's Tom's sig picture. boobies and man hands all over the place!
and how does one conclude 50% > intactness?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Mar 20, 2009 14:25:19 GMT -5
I was there for the original question, as it occurred in my baby blue 1984 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. The ORIGINAL question had nothing to do with what was visible on the surface of the earth.
The question, like many things, was altered once Tom didn't receive the result he expected or wanted.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 14:37:19 GMT -5
Katie Lea is hot. And I believe Justin. Seashells win.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsey on Mar 20, 2009 14:41:30 GMT -5
She kind of looks like someone who was born a man, transitioned, and hopped on the Rock of Love Bus.
seashells are pretty!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2009 14:57:59 GMT -5
Nonsense. She's attractive.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 20, 2009 15:20:42 GMT -5
"Man-Hands" is a Seinfeld reference by the way.
Pieces of shells should count, not as individual shells, but the total accumulation of all of the broken pieces that once belonged to a common shell, should count as one single shell.
Shells win.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2009 15:24:45 GMT -5
"Man-Hands" is a Seinfeld reference by the way.
Eh, sorry, around a lot longer than that. We used to laugh and quip about the "man hands" some girl we knew was sporting back when i was in college, predating Seinfeld. She was from down south, and had farmer hands. Ruddy and tightgripped.
Cho, your idea on the shells is stupid, and again, it has nothing to do with the original question.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 20, 2009 15:26:19 GMT -5
"Cho, your idea on the shells is stupid, and again, it has nothing to do with the original question."
Ehhh...according to Justin, neither does your idea.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Mar 20, 2009 15:28:18 GMT -5
The original question was, "What are there more of on Earth...trees or seashells?"
I remember, because I was sober and driving.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 20, 2009 15:28:46 GMT -5
"Eh, sorry, around a lot longer than that. We used to laugh and quip about the "man hands" some girl we knew was sporting back when i was in college, predating Seinfeld. She was from down south, and had farmer hands. Ruddy and tightgripped."
I used to run around in the late 80s/early 90s telling people that I was sporting sideburns way before Brandon and Dylan were.....but I'm never gonna get the credit for it.
|
|