Monday, 29 September 2008

Geek fight!!!!!

Maybe I miss my school days when the boredom of a lunch break could be shattered by a clarion call of, "FIGHT!!!". Most (if not all) of the school would rush over to try and get a view of a scuffle that could barely be classed as a mild stramash. I've never seen a good school yard fight BUT maybe that’s because there were rarely nerds involved. I would like to believe that if a nerd goes into battle then they do it with all their gusto... and what better arena than the internet?

Here is an excerpt from a recent fight about... about... um.... white line painting on a road... (sigh, this is obviously how modern wars will begin)

NOTE: Names have been changed, glorious syntax preserved.

Shane: The white zone is for FAILing only. There is no FAILing in a red zone.
Cheeze:The red zone is for immediate FAILing only. There is no FAILing in a white zone.
Looser: Dammit Betty, don’t start in with your white zone shit again.
Looser: Reference fail! (try google, Airplane, Script)
Gaycat: Reference fail on your end too. (Try Google, Blue Zone, Tiberium Wars)
Looser: And since when does C&C have anything to do with roads? Double reference fail. Up for 3? Bring your cup!
Gaycat: There are plenty of roads in C&C. Just look at any of the maps.
Looser: Answer fail. I asked you want C&C had to do with roads, I didnt ask if there were roads in C&C. Again you fail to understand the concept of “CONTEXT”. Engrish fail. Stay in school.
Gaycat: Hey, I’m just playing off the whole “zones” thing here.
Looser: Read the lines that say voicelady and voiceman. It will all become clear. It is an older movie but classic none the less.
SillyWhiteBitch: Funny, you don’t look Blueish….
Gaycat:That’s right. I’m red and black, and I fight for Nod.
Looser: OMG you are killing me here. Again you missed it. Its a spaceballs reference. Stop while you are behind. Catchup fail.
Gaycat:Well, I’ve never seen Spaceballs. CRITICISM FAIL.
SillyWhiteBitch: Although, when it comes down to it, I’m not sure what’s wrong with responding to a reference with a reference to something else. It just adds to the general winnage.
Looser: Its perfectly acceptable, the only contingency is that you must let the first reference run its course before the introduction of another, otherwise you end up on a Tolstoy-like montage of references which in the end just aren’t funny at all. So it becomes reference fail instead of endless reference win.

No comments: