My experience with the Fairground Con [Archive]

AdeptCharge

11-13-10, 03:42 PM

1, Shooting Gallery : Hmm after lengthy observation it appeared that the sights of my weapon were misaligned from the true, causing the projectiles to strike the target both high and to the left. (This could be countered by deliberately aiming the firearm in a compensatory direction) simple balistic geometry, not the point, a con. :yep: 2, Fortune Teller : As I neared my way toward the stairwell of said apparatus Hall Of Mirrors, I heard a voice ask "do you want your fortune told love" It was a scruffy lady, I replied (the very fact that you find it necessary to ask the question is surely proof in itself of your inability to forsee, several seconds ago, that at this point I would not enter your booth). After some strange looks were exchanged, another con sprang to mind. :hmmm: 3,Hall Of mirrors : :O: Con 4,Toffee apple : :nope: con. 5,Dogem Cars, : Con :nope: waste of money. I do not see the fun in such farce :nope: I shall not return.

Buddahaid

11-13-10, 03:46 PM

Sounds like you had fun being conned.

AdeptCharge

11-13-10, 03:51 PM

Sounds like you had fun being conned.:yep: I did in the later cons :rock:

krashkart

11-13-10, 05:19 PM

I want to crack a joke here about conning towers, but am unable to come up with anything witty. :hmmm::nope:

TarJak

11-13-10, 07:09 PM

Beware, Greeks in conning towers.:D

AdeptCharge

11-13-10, 10:08 PM

Beware, Hmmm........ a word of caution, "one please" as I sat in the cramped dogem car, paying the man, a hoot then the music started. The other dogem cars were moving. The attendant came running "whats wrong is it not working" shaking the pole. :har: "try pushing the pedal, push down harder" (not) holding the steering wheel I glared at him. ( I surmised that remaining stationary I found myself in the best suited position for avoiding collision, and furthermore made evasive action unecessary). This method ensures the lowest aggregate speed in the event of a head- on impact. :yep: I sat until the hooter sounded and left said dogem car. :yawn:

TLAM Strike

11-13-10, 10:38 PM

Beware, Greeks in conning towers.:D

If your not careful they will sail away with a fin... :O:

Gargamel

11-14-10, 12:54 AM

Hmmm........ a word of caution, "one please" as I sat in the cramped dogem car, paying the man, a hoot then the music started. The other dogem cars were moving. The attendant came running "whats wrong is it not working" shaking the pole. :har: "try pushing the pedal, push down harder" (not) holding the steering wheel I glared at him. ( I surmised that remaining stationary I found myself in the best suited position for avoiding collision, and furthermore made evasive action unecessary). This method ensures the lowest aggregate speed in the event of a head- on impact. :yep: I sat until the hooter sounded and left said dogem car. :yawn:

:o

but.... but..... but........

TarJak

11-14-10, 01:15 AM

If your not careful they will sail away with a fin... :O:
Chortle.:yeah:

SteamWake

11-14-10, 10:26 AM

Why do they call them Fairs anyhow.

Not much there seems fair to me :haha:

nikimcbee

11-14-10, 11:45 AM

I want to crack a joke here about conning towers, but am unable to come up with anything witty. :hmmm::nope:

here KK, I'll help:
Wakka wakka
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JAR7UvJP0gc/S8Yw9bUNAdI/AAAAAAAABTU/c3VR_R7R8Gg/s1600/bears-Fozzie-bear.jpg

AdeptCharge

11-14-10, 12:06 PM

Not much there seems fair to me :haha:Yes, you are correct. fair? misleading! As I observed the stall sign, Toffee Apples £1.50 I decided to purchase one, as I bit into it, there appeared to be a piece of fruit, that was an apple, to use fruit in its Non-Botanical term (as of course an apple contains the fruit, but the fleshy part is but a swollen recepticle) sheathed within the toffee. I concluded therefore that the notice has been couched using misleading elipsis. I was lead to believe that the word toffee was used in an adjectival sense, that is to say describing the constitution of the product. Ie an apple shaped toffee. :nope:

krashkart

11-14-10, 05:59 PM

Gargamel

11-14-10, 06:15 PM

krashkart

11-14-10, 06:18 PM

That's cause they're ducks.

:huh:

My memory is slipping, apparently. :doh:

AdeptCharge

11-14-10, 06:32 PM

I'll take an apple-shaped toffee over a toffee-shaped apple any day. :salute:

Which brings me to the matter of Peeps. Are they a chicken-shaped marshmallow, or a marshmallow-shaped chicken? :-? Either way, Peeps taste nothing like chicken. :shifty:I am not familiar with the term peeps, therefore cannot specify. What I can specify correctly on was my next encounter, The Hall Of Mirrors. :O: I was insulted and threatened inside, and another waste of money. :shifty:

TLAM Strike

11-14-10, 06:37 PM

I am not familiar with the term peeps, therefore cannot specify.

Someone who doesn't know about peeps? Where have you been living? In a cave? North Korea? A cave in North Korea?

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6195/justbornmarshmallowpeep.jpg

AdeptCharge

11-14-10, 06:45 PM

Someone who doesn't know about peeps? Where have you been living? In a cave? North Korea? A cave in North Korea?

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6195/justbornmarshmallowpeep.jpgYou are correct, I do not know about said product, however my locality is not of importance. You have expressed a double negative, the result of course being that a positive has been created and therefore the intent of the question becomes unclear. If as I expect the sentence was designed not specifically as a direct question, but more over as a statement then I would advise proper question. :hmmm:

Sailor Steve

11-14-10, 07:25 PM

I was insulted and threatened inside, and another waste of money. :shifty:
Umm, that scary guy was just your reflection... :sunny:

Spike88

11-14-10, 08:53 PM

That's cause they're ducks.
According to the misses, and the wiki, they're chicks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeps

krashkart

11-14-10, 09:00 PM

Still doesn't explain why anyone would pay $150 for a tofu apple, let alone why said apple-shaped marshmallow doesn't taste like toffee. :hmm2:

AdeptCharge

11-15-10, 06:16 AM

Umm, that scary guy was just your reflection... :sunny: Using, "scary guy" I assume you mean frightening male. I made no mention, I do not understand. :hmmm: Furthermore I fail to comprehend how reflection could/can be classed as scary within locus of fairground. Let me explain : I entered into what was described as the Hall Of Mirrors. Once inside I observed precisely Eight mirrors hung to a cheap wooden walled interior, and roughly guessed the dimensions of the mirrors and length of walkway. I was not alone, there were two people of the male gender, 1 child 1 adult. As I looked into the first mirror, the child (boy) at 3rd mirror said to the adult (man) 4th mirror "look daddy, I'm taller than you!" This caught my interest. A-hem ....

Sailor Steve

11-15-10, 10:53 AM

'Twas a joke, which apparently went right over your head. Now that I'm beginning to understand the nature of your posting, I'll refrain from further attempts.

August

11-15-10, 12:16 PM

Trust not those posters who their location hide.

AdeptCharge

11-15-10, 05:38 PM

Trust not those posters who their location hide.It is not a matter of trust, It is about proper understanding of the posts, even if communication dialect is lost. Back on topic: The child said "look daddy I am taller than you" A-hem NO. This is a virtual image which is distorted due to the object, you that is, being reflected by a convoluted non-planar surface. The mirror thus has a variety of focal planes , the locus of which are determined by the sigmoidal functions of the mirror at any given point of its reflective indeces. the apparent image is therefore determined by variable laterally inverted parallaxis . The Man then swore at me and threatened violence. I left the fairground. :nope:

Raptor1

11-15-10, 05:43 PM

Is it a capital offense to intentionally overcomplicate basic communication nowadays? :hmmm:

Tribesman

11-15-10, 06:15 PM

Is it a capital offense to intentionally overcomplicate basic communication nowadays?
Adept is just here on a windup, he makes posts using as many words as possible to say nothing and see who swallows the bait.

AdeptCharge

11-15-10, 07:29 PM

'Twas a joke, which apparently went right over your head. (Seeming as opposed to) I can conclude nothing entered my premises, and went over my head prior to and during time you posted, taking into consideration said joke was at a height greater than the building I reside in, I fail to understand how you would observe this matter, do you have my exact co-ordinates? :doh:

DarkFish

11-15-10, 07:38 PM

Adept is just here on a windup, he makes posts using as many words as possible to say nothing and see who swallows the bait.:yep:

( ^see that smiley? That's the way to use as few words as possible to say a lot:DL)

Gargamel

11-15-10, 08:56 PM

According to the misses, and the wiki, they're chicks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeps

Don't care.

Theyre ducks to me now.

:D:O:

Sledgehammer427

11-16-10, 01:42 AM

AdeptCharge, I am actually kinda lost as to why your posts are so dense, and yet say next to nothing. Like, all of them are that way. Every time I get on this site I imagine myself sitting at a table with this group of guys having a discussion. Try to put yourself in that spot and I hope you would see how strange this looks to the rest of us. Judging by your tone, it seems to me like you are typing as though you are looking down your nose at the rest of us. The internet is no place to be talking in such a manner, as you must assume that you are among equals. You can simply say "a reflection in a fun house mirror" instead of "a virtual image which is distorted due to the object, you that is, being reflected by a convoluted non-planar surface,(direct quote)" and we wouldn't think of you as any dumber than the rest of us. Using large words and writing paragraphs where most of us would use no more than a couple sentences isn't fooling anybody, and it's giving me the feeling you are hiding behind them. I will not guess at the reason.

That being said, if you are really as bright as you are trying to act through your vocabulary, there are other ways to show it than by doing this. :nope:
I will not reply to your responses to this post, I have been following your posts, AC, and I will make like Sailor Steve and just stay quiet from now on, having said what I wanted to say and nothing more.

@Gargamel, chicks, ducks, they are all just as fun to eat or explode in a microwave. I never cooked one over a fire, but I'm a sucker for s'mores.

AdeptCharge

11-16-10, 10:56 AM

AdeptCharge, I am actually kinda lost as to why your posts are so dense, and yet say next to nothing. Like, all of them are that way. Every time I get on this site I imagine myself sitting at a table with this group of guys having a discussion. Try to put yourself in that spot and I hope you would see how strange this looks to the rest of us. Judging by your tone, it seems to me like you are typing as though you are looking down your nose at the rest of us. The internet is no place to be talking in such a manner, as you must assume that you are among equals. You can simply say "a reflection in a fun house mirror" instead of "a virtual image which is distorted due to the object, you that is, being reflected by a convoluted non-planar surface,(direct quote)" and we wouldn't think of you as any dumber than the rest of us. Using large words and writing paragraphs where most of us would use no more than a couple sentences isn't fooling anybody, and it's giving me the feeling you are hiding behind them. I will not guess at the reason.

That being said, if you are really as bright as you are trying to act through your vocabulary, there are other ways to show it than by doing this. :nope:
I will not reply to your responses to this post, I have been following your posts, AC, and I will make like Sailor Steve and just stay quiet from now on, having said what I wanted to say and nothing more.

I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical.

Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on. I think clearly, and shall contribute to inform.

Herr-Berbunch

11-16-10, 11:41 AM

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4489/1270102794331.png
Cheer up folks!

AdeptCharge

11-16-10, 08:39 PM

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4489/1270102794331.png
Cheer up folks!I see no reason to cheer, A-hem of course there is a perfectly rational explanation. Hmm... matchstick type skeletal figure unconnected by muscle or cartilage, that can type! :hmmm: least the presence of a rudimentary pharynx would be necessary, also how does the diaphragm produce the pressure needed? to omit this "I'm so clever" sound. Preposterous :damn:

Raptor1

11-16-10, 09:20 PM

I see no reason to cheer, A-hem of course there is a perfectly rational explanation. Hmm... matchstick type skeletal figure unconnected by muscle or cartilage, that can type! :hmmm: least the presence of a rudimentary pharynx would be necessary, also how does the diaphragm produce the pressure needed? to omit this "I'm so clever" sound. Preposterous :damn:

It has obviously not omitted the sound, for if it was omitted it would not have appeared in the picture.

You can at least get your facts and/or English right...

AdeptCharge

11-16-10, 09:23 PM

It has obviously not omitted the sound, for if it was omitted it would not have appeared in the picture.

You can at least get your facts and/or English right...:har:

Sledgehammer427

11-17-10, 06:59 AM

Raptor1 is right, the sound you are looking for is "emit"
if memory serves me right, omit means to leave something out or something close to that.

as for the stick figure, any type of humor must escape you. I take it you are just as critical of other cartoons?
"transforming automobiles?! preposterous!"

AdeptCharge

11-17-10, 07:08 AM

DarkFish

11-17-10, 07:34 AM

And two fell into the trap, :up::yep:
The Troll Trap.

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c-800wi

Penguin

11-17-10, 07:52 AM

DarkFish

11-17-10, 08:07 AM

actually this troll is more amusing than some other trolls here.

You don't get proficiency by stinging together random grand words, but by using words in the correct meaning and grammar.

Here's the appropriate song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKsoqYP9UMI
(note to the pc brigade: S.O.D. is no racist band)And there's only one good thing to do with trolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_333699&v=pUPDla44jfQ&feature=iv

TROLLHAMMAREN!!!!!:rock::rock::rock:

AdeptCharge

11-17-10, 08:37 AM

actually this troll is more amusing than some other trolls here.

You don't get proficiency by stinging together random grand words,
Another personal attack, I do not sting together, I use the appropriate words for in depth analogy to deduce the incorrect meanings and to present logical analysis to ones thinking of the fact or matter provided. :yep:

You can at least get your facts and/or English right...You attack personally :nope: My facts are (mostly) complete and in depth. :smug:

it seems to me like you are typing as though you are looking down your nose at the rest of us. You Judge me not my posts. :hmmm:

That being said, if you are really as bright as you are trying to act I deduce the facts only. :know:

:nope: The man of character, sensitive to the meaning of what he is doing, will know how to discover the ethical paths in the maze of (possible behaviour) when you judge another you do not define them, you define yourself. I logically deduce the facts and meanings, not the person perhaps the conversational skill, A-Hem but men of genius are not quick judges of character, deep thinking and high imagining blunt that trivial instinct by which you size people up. :doh:

Sledgehammer427

11-17-10, 09:04 AM

I have little else to judge you by but your posts. I do hope you understand.
(I also hoped I wouldn't have a reason to come back here, so much for that)
A-Hem but men of genius are not quick judges of character, deep thinking and high imagining blunt that trivial instinct* by which you size people up.
Men of genius may not be quick judges of character, but they may be wise enough to not voice that judgment until they have compiled the facts. I assure you, my initial post was not simply out of the blue. I observe. I have little else to do with my time, and just because I don't post doesn't mean I haven't read the thread. This phrase just doesn't fit this situation at all. This is not a face to face conversation, and I can only "size you up" through the words that you type.

My facts are (mostly) complete and in depth.
But the presentation of those facts are convoluted by grammatical errata (omit/emit) and the use of grandiose phrases and explanations in light of simpler ones. You are simply overspeaking and overstating your point. I'm still curious what a person of your implied intellect was doing at a fair to begin with.

*There is no such thing as "instinct," per se, in the human race. we are an intellectual species and since we have the higher thinking needed to accomplish our lives, there is no need for the ingrained instinct that animals have. I can explain this further, if you wish.

Herr-Berbunch

11-17-10, 09:22 AM

Go Sledge, Go Sledge!

http://anythinghollywood.com/wp-content/2010/04/39502PCN_KhloeRed021.jpg

Sailor Steve

11-17-10, 12:32 PM

Another personal attack, I do not sting together, I use the appropriate words for in depth analogy to deduce the incorrect meanings and to present logical analysis to ones thinking of the fact or matter provided. :yep:
That wasn't a personal attack. He called you no names, nor did he disparage your character. He merely continued to comment on your failed attempts at erudition via the use of excessive language without any associated sense. And it's "one's thinking", not "ones". Your inability to get the small details correct betrays your lack of understanding of the larger concepts you attempt to portray yourself with. I'll forgive the use of "sting", for "string", as it's a typo we are all guilty of from time to time.

You attack personally :nope: My facts are (mostly) complete and in depth. :smug:
No, he does not. He points out what I described above, that you try to show superiority with elevated language while failing to get the basics right.

I deduce the facts only. :know:
We have only your word for that. What one actually understands is only transmitted through one's ability to communicate the concepts. If no one understands you, you have failed.