T1B

most of us have thousands of posts here seeking something...

of course we're desperate.

smackaholic wrote:

Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Sorry, but, that is bullshit.

Are you half an idiot, or what?

If we had a photo and were writing in their rank underneath each girl (or dude, if you're marty), your method would make sense

That is exactly what we're doing. The person who sees one of my rankings posts sees a pic of the girls lined up with their ranks listed directly below them. Couldn't be simpler.

Smackie Chan wrote:Trying to defend either method based on relative complexity is an exercise rooted in desperation.

It's an exercise rooted in common sense, which is why you grudgingly admitted that this way is simpler before pride took over and thrust you into pure backpedal mode. Defending the other way on the basis of "that's how everyone else does it" is the height of sheeple lameness.

Everyone else also used to live in huts and fuck nasty women with British teeth and hairy armpits. Don't be that guy.

Van wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Sorry, but, that is bullshit.

Are you half an idiot, or what?

If we had a photo and were writing in their rank underneath each girl (or dude, if you're marty), your method would make sense

That is exactly what we're doing. The person who sees one of my rankings posts sees a pic of the girls lined up with their ranks listed directly below them. Couldn't be simpler.

If you grew up in Japan. Here in the West, we read and write from left to right, we number from left to right - everything we do is oriented from left to right. We don't have to think about assigning numbers to items arranged in a two-dimensional image. Our brains do it automatically. Your system is arranged vertically - look up, then look down. Look up again, then look down again. It's not as intuitive to most people who grew up in a left-to-right world. And the fact that the rankings are not arranged sequentially from left to right (1st to nth) is also counterintuitive.

Our brains don't all work the same, and what seems to be simpler to one person cannot be considered to be universally simpler.

Both methods require looking up and down. Your way also requires a person to scan across the row to see the place in line in which each girl is standing. It's an extra step. My way is simpler: look at girl, see her listed rank.

Van wrote:Both methods require looking up and down.

You're funny when you flail.

Your way also requires a person to scan across the row to see the place in line in which each girl is standing.

You're making my argument for me. As an avid reader and a writer, shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp this concept. Think about the mechanics of reading and writing. Of course both ways require looking up and down. I never denied that. What's important is the order in which they're done. As you're reading this post, what are you doing (among other things)? You are reading each letter and each word from left to right, and when you get to the end of a line, THEN you move your eyes downward to begin the process again. Your eyes & brain are trained to go from l-r, then down and back to the left. Your way is exactly the opposite - look down, look up and right, look down again. We don't usually read vertically from top to bottom, which is analogous to how your system works.

It's an extra step. My way is simpler: look at girl, see her listed rank.

Again, trying to defend either of these system on their relative simplicity or complexity is scraping bottom. You got nothin'.

Nothin', except your original admission (pre-backpedal) that my way is simpler. In the meantime here you are, trying now with these lame exercises in blatant puffery to rebut an argument that you already conceded.

Damn Buckeyes!

Van wrote:Nothin', except your original admission (pre-backpedal) that my way is simpler.

Backpedal? OK. Again with the specious "simpler" argument.

In the meantime here you are, trying now with these lame exercises in blatant puffery to rebut an argument that you already conceded.

See, this is where you're confused. Well, one of the areas. When I conceded the argument, I STOPPED HAVING IT! I am no longer engaged in that argument - as you said, I conceded it before I ever really defended it. It never was the issue - "it" being whether one method was easier or in any way superior to the other. You have merely continued to bring it up as a red herring to avoid the larger issue. Lemme break it down for the studio audience and our viewers at home.

This whole thing can be considered to have started when, in this thread,

Van wrote:You take (in this case) six girls. You assign a rank to each of them in the order in which they're standing, working from left to right. If you think the girl on the far left is the worst, the first number you list is a six. If the third girl is the hottest, she gets the one.

That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked, and that's what I did here, so 'splain the error of my ways.

Moving ahead in the action, he was countered by Screwy, Mgo, & me, and in response to Mgo,

Van wrote:Okay, I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Later, in response to my contention that it had always been done as I had earlier described,

Van wrote:Nope. Not even close.

A little further down,

Van, in response to me, wrote:you and Mgo are in the minority

The point here is that our friend, Van, is obviously and thoroughly convinced at this point that the method he has long been using is the method the majority of posters have been using. Keep in mind - WE ARE NOT ARGUING OR DISCUSSING THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE METHODS - JUST THE RELATIVE PREPONDERANCE OF THEIR USE!

In that thread,

Mgo, to Van, wrote:I don't know what to tell you other than you're flat out wrong.

Turns out, based on the poll results (and I won't defend any arguments regarding its flaws or shortcomings), Mgo was right. Van was wrong. Flat out wrong. And let's face it - Van HATES being wrong, especially when he insisted so hard that we was right. And, if it's possible, he hates something even more than being wrong - ADMITTING he was wrong! (You'll note he hasn't yet, unless you want to count his "Damn Buckeyes" as an admission.) That, my friends, is what this is all about, NOT about whether one insanely simple method is any easier than another insanely simple method, which, from what I can see, no one except Van is arguing.

My posts since the poll closed have not focused on the ease or difficulty of using either of the methods. I merely attempted to explain why the results turned out the way they did. Other questions can be asked and analyzed, such as, if my argument is correct, why didn't EVERYBODY use the same method, since we all were raised in a l-r world. I don't know, and don't really care all that much. Could be genetics. Could be left brain vs right brain, east coast vs west coast, liberal vs conservative. Don't know, don't care. What I do know is that people used both methods, and that the poll results indicated one method was used considerably more than the other. I believe there is a reason, or combination of reasons, why that is. I posited a reason. I have no idea if it's right or wrong. It's just a theory. I would've probably done the same thing if I had been wrong. I'm more interested in trying to understand why the results turned out the way they did than defend the virtues of the method I'd been using.

Van and Dinsdale have had their differences over the years. But I prefer to focus on the things they have in common. 'Cuz that's how I roll. Van's behavior in this thread reminded me of Dinsdale here. There, Dinsdale gets clowned, and tries to turn it into a virtue. It didn't really work, but I applaud the effort. Here, Van, by his standards, gets humiliated by being shown to have been wrong after having been so sure he was right, and rather than make a concession, attempts to deflect attention away from that fact, and have the viewers focus on his brilliance as demonstrated by his employment of a much simpler method (one less step!) than those who were responsible for showing him to be wrong.

Thanks to those of you in the studio audience, and to the viewers at home.

I guess I missed the vote, but I've always used the Van method too. I guess this explains why some of you seem to have weird taste in sluts.

note to self:

self, never get into an argument with Smackie, over even the most mundane of matters.

Looks like Iggy Pop has been working out. Not sure why he's wearing a bikini top, though.

BTW, there isn't any "schism." There's the way it is and the way Van thinks it ought to be.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:Nothin', except your original admission (pre-backpedal) that my way is simpler.

Backpedal? OK. Again with the specious "simpler" argument.

Specious, my ass. It's only "specious" because you said it and it contradicts what you've been attempting to say ever since.

When I conceded the argument, I STOPPED HAVING IT! I am no longer engaged in that argument - as you said, I conceded it before I ever really defended it.

Really?

The person who sees one of my rankings posts sees a pic of the girls lined up with their ranks listed directly below them. Couldn't be simpler.

If you grew up in Japan. Here in the West, we read and write from left to right, we number from left to right - everything we do is oriented from left to right. We don't have to think about assigning numbers to items arranged in a two-dimensional image. Our brains do it automatically. Your system is arranged vertically - look up, then look down. Look up again, then look down again. It's not as intuitive to most people who grew up in a left-to-right world. And the fact that the rankings are not arranged sequentially from left to right (1st to nth) is also counterintuitive.

Our brains don't all work the same, and what seems to be simpler to one person cannot be considered to be universally simpler.

Are you even aware of what you say from one minute to the next? I'm starting to wonder.

Turns out, based on the poll results (and I won't defend any arguments regarding its flaws or shortcomings), Mgo was right. Van was wrong. Flat out wrong.

Let us count the ways in which your entire premise is flat-out ridiculous...

1. Your poll results are incomplete. People have posted in this thread on "my" side who weren't included in your listed results.

2. This whole notion that it's "my" way of doing it, as it though it's mine and mine alone, is completely shot to hell even by your own flawed results. Clearly I'm not the only one who is and has been doing it this way. So, no, it's not me vs everyone else.

3. Your poll only lists seventeen respondents. My contention was that "my" way is how it's always been done. Not literally, as in every last person without exception, but definitely the majority. I'm going back fourteen years here, which includes a fuckuva lot more than just the seventeen people you're showing now. The point being, your poll isn't the least bit indicative of basically anything other than what a small handful of people claim to do now.

And let's face it - Van HATES being wrong, especially when he insisted so hard that we was right. And, if it's possible, he hates something even more than being wrong - ADMITTING he was wrong! (You'll note he hasn't yet, unless you want to count his "Damn Buckeyes" as an admission.)

If this isn't the epitome of pot and kettle, I don't know what is. Your lame obfuscations here about "specious" arguments are merely further proof.

That, my friends, is what this is all about, NOT about whether one insanely simple method is any easier than another insanely simple method, which, from what I can see, no one except Van is arguing.

No one except me? Well, sure, other than you, smackaholic, 88, etc, all of whom have made similar arguments.

My posts since the poll closed have not focused on the ease or difficulty of using either of the methods.

See above. You have definitely attempted to claim that "your" way is easier because "my" way isn't how people read in the West, which was an entirely laughable attempt at backpedaling out of a concession you had already made.

Van, by his standards, gets humiliated by being shown to have been wrong after having been so sure he was right, and rather than make a concession, attempts to deflect attention away from that fact, and have the viewers focus on his brilliance as demonstrated by his employment of a much simpler method (one less step!) than those who were responsible for showing him to be wrong.

Humiliated? By the "specious" results of a poll representing only a tiny fraction of the available respondents?

Jesus, dude, get over yourself. This is a silly Seinfeld-esque academic debate over...nothing. Believe me, I'm not the least bit humiliated, nor should I be. I honestly could not care less how you or anyone else lists their Rank 'Em picks.

The main reason the Van method makes more sense is because we're only using one line to rank them. Since the numbers are in one line, it would make sense that the rankings correspond to the order of the girls in the photo. The Mgo method ranks the girls from most to least bangable by their number in line. This is what's typically known as a "list." Lists are vertical, not horizontal. The Mgo method would make more sense if it was posted as follows:

1. 6
2. 4
3. 3
4. 1
5. 2
6. 5

But why go to all that trouble when you can just type 4 5 3 2 6 1?

Nope. I use the verb version and still MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan's post applies.

Verb or noun, it makes equal sense.

Van wrote:Not to mention that both Mgo and Smackie agree that "my" method actually makes more sense and is easier to follow.

Sure, but that was never the debate.

Van wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Sorry, but, that is bullshit.

Are you half an idiot, or what?

On a good day, yeah. I usually float between 2/3 and 3/4 idiot.

If we had a photo and were writing in their rank underneath each girl (or dude, if you're marty), your method would make sense

That is exactly what we're doing. The person who sees one of my rankings posts sees a pic of the girls lined up with their ranks listed directly below them. Couldn't be simpler.

No, it is not exactly what we were doing. What I am referring to is having a photo and a marker so you could look at the pic, then write "1" beneath the most bangable, and so on. We are dealing with an interweb board which uses that default l-r dealio that Smackie mentioned, so the ranker must look at chick number 1 and decide here rank, post it etc. It is a more involved process, IMO. I will give you that for the shmuck reading another's ranking, your method is nice. But, we are all self centered dicks, we don't care about others.

88 wrote:When "rank" is used as a noun, the word can mean a heirarchy or degree or level of achievement, which is generally considered to be a top to bottom (vertical) system (e.g., mvscal has achieved the rank of Grand Wizard in the KKK). I suppose that it possible that when presented with the phrase "Rank 'Em" in a thread title, a person would assume that they were being tasked to assign "ranks" to the individuals in the picture. If the person reaches that conclusion regarding the meaning of the word "rank", then I suppose Van's ranking method would make sense, as you would view your task as assigning ranks to the individuals in the photograph, and you would have to generate a heirarchy (vertical alignment) and then express that heirarchy from left to right relative to the position of those appearing in the picture for it to make sense.

When "rank" is used as a verb, the word can mean the act of arranging or ordering things in a row or line (e.g., Please rank the SEC football programs in terms of their awesomeness). I submit that most people when presented with the phrase "Rank 'Em" assume that they are being tasked to "rank" (verb) the individuals in the picture (rather than being tasked to assign ranks to the individuals, because the latter requires the implication of a verb not present). If the person reaches the conclusion that they have been tasked to rank the subjects shown in the picture, they would use the method that overwhelmingly won the non-scientific polling in this thread, as they would view their task as identifying the individuals in the picture by a number that has been assigned to them from left to right, and then re-ordering (i.e., ranking) the individuals in terms of bangability by such numbers (because you cannot use their names, since they are unknown).

Verb vs. noun doesn't make any difference, because they both apply to the scenario in question. When you set about to rank (v.) a group of some kind (hotties by their bangability, college football teams by their perceived strength), you are invariably assigning each of them a rank (n.).

Now think of every ranking you've ever seen outside of a Rank 'Em thread. Every last one of them goes from top to bottom, not left to right.

From now on, I'll just describe in vivid detail the ones I wouldn't fuck.

Sheesh

Sudden Sam wrote:This will never be resolved.

2,1

88 wrote:

The fat one I guess

Yeah, at the very least I'd put her above the blonde on the far right, and probably Wiig too.

Sudden Sam wrote:This will never be resolved.

Why do I have to be a broke ass commie? I like creature comforts. Hell, food is nice too.

Oh, come on...

Seriously...



Not in.

This looks like it morphed into a battle of who can find poptart and bring him home. :?

Sudden Sam wrote:Rank 'em using the method of your choice:

1/2


1/2

Van wrote:Jesus, dude, get over yourself.

OK, man. I'm over myself.

For now.

Maybe.

Wait...

...maybe not!!!...

You popped into the chat room, to find War Wagon & KC Scott
Comparing snowfall levels in the flyover,
While Wolfman was jamming to Mott.
A long day peddling lemons at the used car lot,
And now you just wanted to hear Joe Bonamassa,
Hear some Bonamassa, and...

[Chorus]
You're so Van, you no doubt think this thread is about you.
You're so Van, I'll bet you think this thread is about you,
Don't you? Don't You?

You ranked ‘em several years ago, and have been doing it wrong ever since.
“But my way is better! There’s one less step!
What does it take to convince
That those who do it right are the tards, and if you don’t mind, could you
Play Stevie Ray Vaughan, and maybe some Clapton?
Maybe some Clapton?” and...

[Chorus]

Play Stevie Ray Vaughan, and maybe some Clapton,
Maybe some Clapton, and...

[Chorus]

Well I hear you rode up to Mendocino (or maybe it was Big Sur).
Did you PM IB in New Mexico?
(What’s up between you and her?)
You & Marty disagree almost all the time
Except when you're rankin’ ‘hos
Then that commie bastard becomes just like your best friend
Just like your best friend, and...

[Chorus]

You're so Van, you probably think this thread is about you
You're so Van, you probably think this thread is about you

Rack the Carly Simon reset, that was beautiful, mang.

Yeah, with the name 'Van' I've certainly never heard that one before.

Van wrote:Yeah, with the name 'Van' I've certainly never heard that one before.

Right. But what makes mine original is that it's a parody of a parody. I don't remember whose, though.

This part has a sort of cool melancholy vibe...

"...and if you don’t mind, could you
Play Stevie Ray Vaughan, and maybe some Clapton?
Maybe some Clapton?” and...

...kind of like Harry Dean Stanton sitting in some lonesome Texas roadhouse shanty, cradling a bottle of booze while letting the record player skip over and over.

I liked that.

Rack S_C!

Van wrote:Yeah, with the name 'Van' I've certainly never heard that one before.

You mean off this board people go around doing song parodies of you?

You've got an interesting life there.

Not as an every day occurence, no, but for the most part, yeah, whenever "You're So Vain" comes on some smart ass usually just has to insert my name in there and run with it. Angelina and Julie used to do entire fake-singing duets about it.

Granted, this is the first time it's been done with a Toon Town twist.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Rack S_C!

what he said....NICE!!!!

Van wrote:whenever "You're So Vain" comes on some smart ass usually just has to insert my name in there and run with it.

So you're not lying when you say you're the same here as you are irl.

Van wrote:Angelina and Julie used to do entire fake-singing duets about it.

It's almost as if you subconsciously took the name "Angelina Jolie" and split it in the elaborate fiction that is the world inside your mind.

You remind me of John Cusack's character "Ed" in the movie Identity.




Anyone who's seen that movie...



...will know what I'm talking about.


This just solidifies my theory that you are in fact some creepy, urine-drinking shut-in whose constructed reality is a buffer to a lonely existence.

Nope, sorry, my first wife really was named Angelina and her sister really was named Julia. They're hardly unusual names, you know.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:whenever "You're So Vain" comes on some smart ass usually just has to insert my name in there and run with it.

So you're not lying when you say you're the same here as you are irl.