Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

In a park

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:07

You're in a park, slowly taking a walk.
You approach a bench.
You see a woman sitting on that very park bench, reading SICP.
You approach her.

Your punch line>

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:14

Hey, baby. Huh huh huh.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:14

I'd cdr your cons, if you know what I mean *wink wink*

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:15

((()()())(((((()())))))))))()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))())()((((()()()))(((((((()))())(()())())())))((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(((()()(((())))))))))))))()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:21

1. Women can't code.
2. Women can't read.
3. I never go outside.
4. I would never approach a woman.

In short, this is an impossible situation.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:23

>>1
I'll give you more Big-Os than this book ever will.

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+big+o btw)

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:26

>>5
Since you never go outside, mind sharing with us the magic method you used to come up with the conclusion that women cannot read or code?
(btw i agree that most women are dumb, but it cannot be that all of them where cursed by God!)
Or is it us the ones that are cursed? Hey, where are you going?
Sigh.
* sits in that very bench park alone *

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:27

>>7
gtfo feminist fag

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:28

>>8 is an idiot

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:29

>>9
lol @ angry feminist

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:31

>>10
you don't know what the hell you're talking about
Saying that all women are dumb is foolish.
Saying that one in 1^128 is not dumb is something i can accept.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:31

this thread is now hijacked by angry feminist supporters and lonely fat otakus living in their moms basement.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:35

You're as beautiful as the Y combinator, lets beta-reduce the night away!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:43

Wanna recursively iterate over my infinite list?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 10:55

>>11
Saying that one in 1^128 is not dumb is something i can accept.
Woah.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 11:29

>>11
one in 1^128 is not dumb
feminazi

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 11:34

>>1
What!? OMG IS THAT SICP!? Oh boy oh boy oh boy A/S/L lol I'm so horny!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 12:02

>>1
Your punch line>
LISP sucks.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 12:20

Hey, baby. Wanna take a ride on my FTP?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 12:36

My punchline:

I'm the Suss.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 12:38

>>19
FTPenis amirite?

>>20
It would be better if you said
You're my Suss; i am your man
Let's transcend O(n log n)

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 13:57

sicp is such a n00b book *horrible anal rape*

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 14:15

>>22

*holds up spork* hihi i no rite &_& kawaii

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 14:19

>>23
d00000000000000000000000000000000000000m

~ me being javascript ^___________^;;;

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 14:22

read sicp ^__^;

sicp is satori

satori is japanese and means instant win ^_____^

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 14:24

>>25
wana cudle??? ~_^

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 14:29

　　∧M∧　 　 　┌─────────
　　( ´ー｀)　　 　＜　LOL *RANDOM* desuuu~~~ ^_^
　 　＼　< 　　 　 └──────────
　　　　＼.＼ 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　/|
　　　 　　＼.＼ 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　//
　 　　　　　 ＼.＼ 　　　　　　　 　 　　　　　　　　 ／/
　　　　　 　 　 ＼.＼∧∧∧∧∧∧∧∧∧∧／／
　　　　　 　 　 　 ＼　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　／
　　　　　　　　 　 　 ∪∪￣￣￣￣￣￣∪∪

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 15:11

>>11
Saying that one in 1^128 is not dumb is something i can accept.
So you're saying all woman are not dumb? I find that unreasonable, a good percentage of the world population is stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 16:04

>>28
What i am saying is that not all women are dumb.
Which means that some are not dumb.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 16:17

>>29

Go back to the kitchen.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 16:19

>>29
What i am saying is that not all women are dumb.
Do the math.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 17:17

>>31
All women are dumb -> 100% of women = dumb.
Not all women are dumb -> woman might be dumb.
no?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 17:21

>>32
1^128 = ?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 17:33

>>33
128. I don't see your point.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 17:36

>>34
Of course, sorry. IHBT, IHL.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 17:47

Women ≠ ∅ ⇒
(¬∀x∈Women (Dumb(x)) ⇔ ∃x∈Women (¬Dumb(x)) ∧
∀x∈Women (¬Dumb(x)) ⇒ ∃x∈Women (¬Dumb(x))) ⇒
(∀x∈Women (¬Dumb(x)) ⇒ ¬∀x∈Women (Dumb(x)))

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 18:01

>>6
So...what? You then hand her a piece of paper with a url on it?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 18:37

>>6
Goddamn. You have no idea how much I hate faggots who link to that site.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 20:21

>>8-10
same person

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-23 23:56

>>36
Women ∩ Smart People = ∅
fixd

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 0:01

"Is your other car a cdr?"

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 1:52

>>33
What the fuck, 1^128 = 1. That would mean "one in one is not dumb", meaning 100% of all women aren't dumb.

I have been trolled right now, haven't I?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 3:23

>>42
YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 11:18

>>11
EXPERT TROLLER

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 17:05

I'd recurse your tail if you know what i mean

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 17:15

>>45
That doesn't make any sense.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 17:41

I'd abstract your lambda calculus if you catch ym drift

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 17:42

>>46
that's what she said

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 20:03

>>13
lol win

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 20:12

Hey baby, I'm the knight of your lambda calculus. Wanna interact with my higher level functions?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 20:58

>>50
Thank you, if someday, I see a woman reading SICP I think that's what I will say.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 21:30

>>51
They teach women to read now?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-24 21:33

>>50
I won't change your state if we remain purely functional.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-25 0:20

>>53
You're probably referentially transimpotent.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-25 11:01

I'm interested in abusing referential transparancy to "hack" someone's (will go unnamed) computer, for reasons I'll keep to myself. I've done a little research on it, but I haven't yet found any solid evidence that you can use referential transparancy to "hack" someone's computer.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-25 11:23

>>55
bad punch line.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-25 19:05

>>34
lrn21*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-25 19:54

>>57
Have A Nice Day

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-17 1:21

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -