79 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 79 guests
0 members, 79 guests
Lo más popular ahora:
Word Association (74 usuarios)
AoKTS updates (54 usuarios)
1.6 reward campaing (45 usuarios)
New CBA Hero now supports HD / D... (43 usuarios)
TIW 2020 Map votes (28 usuarios)
CBA PathBlood 1.8.0 (28 usuarios)
New Voobly Client 2.7 (28 usuarios)
Temas más activos de la semana:
#ReviveCS - Proposal (33 mensajes)
1.0c shows in game instead of 1.... (9 mensajes)
Error al lanzar la partida (5 mensajes)
WRONG GAME ROOM NUMBER INVITE (4 mensajes)
Setting up port forwarding in r... (4 mensajes)
Voobly disappearing without erro... (4 mensajes)
Error : 50000000 (3 mensajes)
=> google ... not sure if that's legal. but since you go to google most of the time when you can't think of something/are being stupid I'd say it is.
Anywho, I believe I'm done with this thread as it will never stop.
Anyway, I will give a couple of explanations.
dodo => stupid Although you can call the things stupid at your discretion, it sounds a lot like an opinion. Essentially, the two words need not only fall into the same class (by meaning only); they must be related by a large and well known class.
stupid => google I don't see any reason why to keep google. I don't mind proper nouns, as long as there is a clear way in which they are related.
Current word: dodo.
And for the latter... A + B following AB does not mean there's a significantly large set but if you want to talk about it in terms of sets it'd be R -> A or B -> B or A, where R only contains A and B. Not R goes to A B or C randomly which doesn't exist in the set (i.e. no direct causal relationship for that word to be put into play). I was talking about it in terms of a chemical reaction: NaCl (s) -> Na+ and Cl- in water.
I think we're on the same page in that the associations must be logical but I still disagree about circumstantial leading to dependent. I do get what you're saying about anything under the set can be used but I'm just used to doing things in order and my chemical reaction analogy is that you can't synthesize something skipping the second step, which for circumstantial leading to dependent would mean that a circumstantial act that would indeed be dependent on certain things would need to be specified. Anywho, it's probably stupid to think about this game like that.
I think the rules should be put into place that you can't go up (back to the bigger set). For instance:
dodo => animal
That way you guys might finish this thing eventually.
Current word: dodo.
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
inferior => limit
-limit of what?