> Oh Oracle most onpfallish, who is so great that no words can describe
> you, so words like onpfallish have to be made up, only they look
> stupid because nobody understands what they mean, what with not having
> words to describe them and all, and plus you have to explain that
> onpfallish is a substitute for the words there aren't to describe you,
> and not your cat walking on the keyboard again, like he did last week,
> except of course you understand all this without needing to have it
> explained, but for everyone else it's kind of confusing, because people
> (except you, of course) might think that onpfallish means "foolish"
> or "orange" or "with new and improved real dirt flavour", which I
> wouldn't want people to think, so the whole confusing onpfallish
> thing has to be explained to everyone (except you), as I think I
> said earlier, which gets a bit tricky since you can't describe a
> word that can't be described in words, (which is to say I can't,
> I'm sure it would be easy for you) especially if you (which is me,
> not you) only have a vague idea of what the word means, unless you
> (again, me, not you) just say "cannot be described in words", but
> saying "Oracle, most cannot be described in words" doesn't really
> get accros what you (Are we all clear that I'm talking about me,
> the supplicant, and not you, the Oracle?) are trying to say, so then
> it has to be explained that onpfallish sort of means really great,
> only really really really great, only with more really's than that,
> sort of an arbitrarily large number of really's and then great, with
> implications and subtext besides, which all basically boil down to
> that you (And by you I mean you as in you, not you as in not you,
> but me.) are a pretty cool anthropomorphism.
>
> Ummmm....
>
> Uhhh,
>
> What was my question again?
|