Can you sicken me?

[InsanePiker]

I've been sickened by the cause of causation and the sickening has over taken my ablility to forsake the less-sickened and you shall never know who I am without first knowing how sickening it makes me to think about YOU thinking about how much it sickens me. It just sickens me?

[His Boy Elroy]

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been sickened by the cause of causation and the sickening has over taken my ablility to forsake the less-sickened and you shall never know who I am without first knowing how sickening it makes me to think about YOU thinking about how much it sickens me. It just sickens me?

[/ QUOTE ]

2

[ChrisV]

[GetThere1Time]

The 8 is a simplified mod in this attack. I shored up the mod 8 by including a 9 group surrounding it. The reason that 8, as a simplified mod(or any mod for that matter) needs such protection is because when you're going to move to a full out recon in the end, then you can't have a defeated mod. Safety needs to come first this early....Mayshaque underestimated this imo. Secondly, I completely revamped Mayshaque's mid-late act. I don't know where to begin here, but I think that Mayshaque was just wrong in thinking that he could group together 4 semi fullrites without some minor backlash from Borak's Retaliation. I know that its ballsy to critisize a legend like that, but I really feel strongly about this. I did a few minor adjustments to 3, 16, and 21, but I won't go into too much detail there. I'm sure you'll see that I applied Brian to 99, which even the strongest Mayshaque supporters would concede. The only other move of note is my dealings with #44. I'll actually play a little game with you all here(this will be a nice little quiz for many of you beginners): Can you tell why I adjusted #44 in the way I did? Over than that, everything else should be pretty evident. Feel free to post comments. I'm really proud of this work, as I consider it one of my finest...


1
4 5 7




9 9 9

9 9 8 9 9








10 9 9




12 21 22
11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

14


15 16
17
18
19
20



2 14
14 3 44
















23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30










31







32
32
32
40
32
32
32
32
32 33
32
32
32


34 35 36 37 38

101

39


42
41 44
43
46 45
47 47 48 49 50 51

55 54

56
53
52

57
58

59 60 61 66 62 63 64 63 65 67 36





68

69 70 70

71 71 72 73






74 74 75 76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83

4

84
4
85 88 86

87 85 89 90 90 91






92 92 93 94 95 96

97 98


99 100

[Big Limpin]

Your theories raise interesting questions about the relative value of 8 in the {3,5.6,88,100} number series. That is why i like pastrami sandwiches. With 2 of these and a jug of orange juice, I feel like i can fly a plane with reckless abandon. Loop de loops and everything. I like swiss cheese also. But sometimes when im grocery shopping, i think "yo i try some new cheese today" and get some goudda or edam. And that make sa good sandwich too. I usually only do this on Tuesdays, can i get a hells yeah on that>? Another thing that sickens me is when you are flying a kite and theres thunder and ligntning and all of a sudden your shoe falls off. And your like 'whoa' did i get hit by ligning but theres not a cloud in the sky ? So therefore, without a pastrami sandwich, you really cant telll one way or the other if that dog you were playing with was a cat or just a small dog. Until i get clarity on the merits of small dogs versus planes doing aeronautical tricks, i'm going to stick with my gut, saying 8 is in fact NOT conguent with 44 in the above example. I like yaghting too, thsoe boats are so fast when you relize they dont have a propellor. Pastrami ftw. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[amplify]

In all judgements wherein the relation of a subject to the predicate
is cogitated (I mention affirmative judgements only here; the
application to negative will be very easy), this relation is
possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to
the subject A, as somewhat which is contained (though covertly) in
the conception A; or the predicate B lies completely out of the conception
A, although it stands in connection with it. In the first instance,
I term the judgement analytical, in the second, synthetical.
Analytical judgements (affirmative) are therefore those in which the
connection of the predicate with the subject is cogitated through
identity; those in which this connection is cogitated without
identity, are called synthetical judgements. The former may be
called explicative, the latter augmentative judgements; because the
former add in the predicate nothing to the conception of the
subject, but only analyse it into its constituent conceptions, which
were thought already in the subject, although in a confused manner;
the latter add to our conceptions of the subject a predicate which
was not contained in it, and which no analysis could ever have
discovered therein. For example, when I say, "All bodies are
extended," this is an analytical judgement. For I need not go beyond
the conception of body in order to find extension connected with it,
but merely analyse the conception, that is, become conscious of the
manifold properties which I think in that conception, in order to
discover this predicate in it: it is therefore an analytical
judgement. On the other hand, when I say, "All bodies are heavy,"
the predicate is something totally different from that which I think
in the mere conception of a body. By the addition of such a predicate,
therefore, it becomes a synthetical judgement.

[diebitter]

yah, I had one once, but the back wheel fell off.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
In all judgements wherein the relation of a subject to the predicate
is cogitated (I mention affirmative judgements only here; the
application to negative will be very easy), this relation is
possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to
the subject A, as somewhat which is contained (though covertly) in
the conception A; or the predicate B lies completely out of the conception
A, although it stands in connection with it. In the first instance,
I term the judgement analytical, in the second, synthetical.
Analytical judgements (affirmative) are therefore those in which the
connection of the predicate with the subject is cogitated through
identity; those in which this connection is cogitated without
identity, are called synthetical judgements. The former may be
called explicative, the latter augmentative judgements; because the
former add in the predicate nothing to the conception of the
subject, but only analyse it into its constituent conceptions, which
were thought already in the subject, although in a confused manner;
the latter add to our conceptions of the subject a predicate which
was not contained in it, and which no analysis could ever have
discovered therein. For example, when I say, "All bodies are
extended," this is an analytical judgement. For I need not go beyond
the conception of body in order to find extension connected with it,
but merely analyse the conception, that is, become conscious of the
manifold properties which I think in that conception, in order to
discover this predicate in it: it is therefore an analytical
judgement. On the other hand, when I say, "All bodies are heavy,"
the predicate is something totally different from that which I think
in the mere conception of a body. By the addition of such a predicate,
therefore, it becomes a synthetical judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not sick, that's Kant. Kind of funny to read in English, but don't worry it's as convulted in German.
EuropeanIQBrag: We read this around 9th or 10th grade in highschool :P

[diebitter]

ya know, when I saw what Amp wrote, the word 'Kant' jumped into my head. Or something like it.