 | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items —C. L. GunningCook
|
| | | (...) snipped You know, I think I may take this as proof that I am missing the GEEK gene, as I heard the discussion first hand, and now I'm reading it again..... and STILL the *ONLY* part I understand is "copious amount of liquor." On a side note, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Heh heh, ok, lemme see if I can give it a non-geeky explanation... Instead of eating your french toast by carving out roughly equal-sized small pieces one at a time, do this: Cut the toast in half and consider each half a new piece of toast. (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items —C. L. GunningCook
|
| | | | | | (...) Hey thanks Todd, I think. To be honest I just found the whole thing so funny because I can honestly say, none of my non-Afol friends can manage to spell "recursively" after a night of drinking never mind have a working theory around it based (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) You play with LEGO bricks. You openly admit it. You even joined an online community to bask in the brickiness of it all. You've got the Geek gene. Now, your gene might be smaller and more selective than those of others here, but it still (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
