posted
What is the proper format for a long, drawn out vowel? For example, if I wanted to depict a fanatic soccer sportscaster fervently announcing a team's goal, would it be "Gooooooooooooooaaaaal!" or "Go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oa-a-a-a-a-a-l"?
Both sound slightly off. THe first could be read "Goo-all", and the second "Go-oh-oh-al".
posted
Heathen. Someone needs to burn Spaceman at the stake; you can't have an even number--you'll ruin the symmetry of the exclamation, the beauty of the train of 'o's, the balance between good and evil in the universe.
posted
I think we need to know the context here. If it's for the winning team, then absolutely 25 o's. On the other hand, the losing team might cry out with 24 or 26 o's upon seeing the winning team make yet another score. In this case the unbalance would work in your favor. But without knowing the specific context I don't know whether to suggest 24, 25, or 26.
I suppose it could be a small child, in which case you could consider 15 o's, but as I said before, it all depends on context. Is it a boy or girl saying this?
posted
It is a fanatic sportscaster, as he informed us earlier in the post. Now we just need to know whether he was rooting for the team that scored or not.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Since this is a fanatic sportscaster, I can only see him getting excited if it is the home team that scores. However, because he is fanatic, he is probably yelling this so it should be written as such:
posted
It must be an even number if you skip the hyphens. If you use hyphens, you need an odd number. Gooooal! G-o-o-o-al! (This was for a pea-wea league score.)
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
If you truly want to be esthetic, then prime numbers are even better than odd numbers alone. And, if you want to really be artistic, make sure that when you add up the letters in any adjacent words the sum is also a prime.
posted
I saw "Hyper-Cube" which came out a few years ago, but it pretty well sucked. They tried to add a time element to the mix and it just didn't work as well. The whole psychological aspect fell completely flat and they basically answer the "Who is doing this? and why?" questions which, imo, were never meant to be answered. It doesn't matter if it is a rich sicko or some forgotten arm of the government or whatever. The point is watching them figure everything out, the psychological play -- it's far better than any "reality" show.
"Hyper-cube" barely scratched the surface of the deeper story. I didn't care as much about the characters or the story. It didn't have me gripped the way "Cube" did.
posted
Hypercube stank. It had none of what made Cube great: a stark, uninteresting set that put all of the focus on the characters, characters worthy of that focus, and a problem worthy of the characters.
I have no clue as to why they made Hypercube, and I'd have difficulty believing that the same people wrote it. There just wasn't anything UNDER it.
Cube is one of my favorite movies. Have you seen Pi?
P.S. Another complaint about "Hypercube" was that it was too bright. Literally. The set was almost a glowing white. It lacked the dark edge that added to the creepiness in "Cube".
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited July 19, 2005).]
posted
Ooh, Aronofsky. That was a great movie. Basically, a mathematician becomes convinced that pi is the key to everything. There's so much more, but a) I haven't watched it for a few years, and b) I don't want to give anything away. I bet you would like it.
Darn, now I want to watch that one. How can I choose?
Oh, wait. I only have PI on my computer and my monitor is dying. That makes the choice easy.
--Mel
[EDITED to remove redundancy]
[This message has been edited by MCameron (edited July 19, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
