« lPod | Main | Advertizing By Trackbacks? »
February 07, 2005
Not a Dork
I am not a dork. I was kidding, that was a test. I knew it would work. Danny was the only one who noticed it was not an i it was a lowercase L! Muahahahaha! So sorry Uncle Ted, we can not be dorks together (you got Nicole for that). This is for you dad: I am sorry everybody, because I "lied".
Posted by Kelly at February 7, 2005 08:46 PM
Comments
yes... perhaps kelly is not a dork, but she definitely IS a nerd!!!
Posted by: Nicole at February 7, 2005 08:57 PM
Hmmmm . . . Well, that must mean that Eric didn't get one either, because he got an IPod, when it is actually supposed to be iPod.
Nicole can't be a dork, she hasn't even made any of her own accesories for her iPod.
Posted by: UT at February 7, 2005 10:38 PM
I didn't know that you spelled Muhahahaha like that. I'm using that one later!
Posted by: sista at February 8, 2005 01:11 PM
I would have to say I am, indeed a dork. Making and ipod case out of ductape? yeah, definitly.
Posted by: Eric at February 8, 2005 05:20 PM
I have to go with you on that eric. And nicole...
definitions:
NERD:
1. A foolish, inept, or unattractive person.
2.A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.
DORK:
1. a dull stupid fatuous person
2. p*nis
I do not think that anybody here is a dork... Maybe a nerd though.
Posted by: kelly at February 8, 2005 05:33 PM
what is this post even about?
I would define myself as a:
weird�o (w�rd)
n. Slang pl. weird�oes
1.person regarded as being very strange or eccentric.
2. deranged, potentially dangerous person.
probably the second one
Posted by: Eric at February 8, 2005 06:52 PM
WOAH WOAH!!!!
YOU DIDN'T get an ipod???? that was bad. im officaly mad at you.
Posted by: Eric at February 8, 2005 06:55 PM
i really didnt understand what was going on, you should have given a better explanation. man... im not really mad at you, but... man...
Posted by: Eric at February 8, 2005 06:59 PM
you see, it was a test. I always get confused with the font san serif. the lower case L: l. The upper case i: I. They are EXACTLY the same. Something that I noticed it that when eric wrote about and iPod, a lot of people looked at. iPod is spelled with an i (lowercase, but I though that some people may think that I just made the same mistake a eric). Sure enough, my theory was proved correct, my dad always looks, but Uncle Ted and Eric looked at it and posted, thinking it was iPod rather than LPod. I wanted to try something like this for a while, and here was the opportunity. That comes to show that San Serif is a very confusing font and should not be put on computer programming because there are a lot of good fonts to choose from. Some of them even look exactly like San Serif without the confusing lettering. Either it should be taken off a computer or not be used. And that concludes my very well thought out comment. Thank you.
Posted by: kelly at February 8, 2005 07:12 PM
That was my better explanation eric.
Posted by: kelly at February 8, 2005 07:13 PM
l THlNK Y0U SH0ULD JUST ACCEPT THAT S0ME LETTERS L00K ALlKE. O'S L00K LlKE ZER0ES. ARE Y0U G0lNG T0 BAN TH0SE?
Posted by: UT at February 8, 2005 09:34 PM
I could tell Ted was using zeros because they were much skinnier. A friend of mine has a terrible san-serif name: illene. It looks like three lower-case "L"s in a row: Illene.
Kelly is considering changing the font style of her Blog to Georgia, a seriffed font. Her "el-Pod" post will look strange and future generations may wonder how we were all so easily fooled by it.
Posted by: Jeb at February 9, 2005 12:14 AM
That is not the same, I could tell too Uncle Ted, that isn't the same thing. On computers, you can definitely tell the difference between 0 and O.
Posted by: kelly at February 9, 2005 03:09 PM