ROLE REVERSAL ! Even more complicated than Adepts 'games' !!!

**confus-ed** · June 14th, 2004, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by a d e p t

You don't know how many times I hear that!

It's soooo common to get mixed up between a dancing question mark and an Escher drawing.

Or the England and Canadian flags.

Now there's a game ..( comes from someone getting me & adept muddled !?! Techz we'll have to find someone 'special' for you ! ) .. Everyone can do online personality swaps - first though we need some 'profiles' so I know what part I'm playing ..

So I think its 'safer' if we do ourselves - however it may be much funnier, if we also 'grant permission' to someone else to do 'us' as well .. once we have any matches onboard we can start ROLE REVERSAL !

So my profile ; - Technicaly ambiguous due to 'poor tech internet aura' - once clear however has huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge explanations for many things, does puns & smileys all over the place & tries to be witty & pithy, finds being honest simpler than being tactful even if the 'I never meant that' bits take some doing, is blatantly completely potty

& of course for starters .. I've gotta nominate Adept

He should now profile himself & how he should be & his 'proposal' for his version of 'me' - he can accept mine or state a counter, I should decline or accept & then ..

So (having not thought too much about how to do this at all) I propose we create new members, e.g. 'Adept is confus-ed !' & 'Confus-ed plays Adept' & post as them on the forums for a day or whatever playing each others profile ..

Anyone can post & anyone can do a swap, but each should be accepted first here & it may be fun to be several at once, sort of 'official multiple personality man', which other folks seem to play with such glee, so it must be fun ..

All alterations & suggestions welcome

**confus-ed** · June 14th, 2004, 07:49 AM

Awww 'bump'

I thought this particular work of insanity might at least draw some comments on multiple personality man in our midst, or is adept just not up yet ?

**paraflyer** · June 14th, 2004, 08:20 AM

No, I think we're all agreed that you should go easy on the medication.

**Cobra X** · June 14th, 2004, 08:21 AM

adept's not up yet. he's on canadian time. and he also might've gotten eaten by a moose.

**Ya_know** · June 14th, 2004, 08:28 AM

It's hard enough for me to keep up with my own Internet Personality. Last thing I want to do is fake it with someone else’s rhetoric…

**amyb** · June 14th, 2004, 08:31 AM

huh? please explain more to the caffiene deprived.

**TripleRLtd** · June 14th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ya_know

It's hard enough for me to keep up with my own Internet Personality. Last thing I want to do is fake it with someone else’s rhetoric…

I took this more as an editorial, not a game.
Or: an op/-ed, if ya know what I mean.

**Stalemate** · June 14th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Cobra X

adept's not up yet. he's on canadian time. and he also might've gotten eaten by a moose.

OK, I'm up now.

The moose was chocolate, so the roles were definitely reversed there.

I'll re-read Confus-ed's post, slowly, to see if I can filter through the Guinness haze of it and comment a bit later.

**WebHead** · June 14th, 2004, 11:57 AM

Too many rules

**Stalemate** · June 14th, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by WebHead

Too many rules

After much meditating upon this, I have to agree.

It sounds too complicated as it stands.

The premise is interesting, but another method of putting it into practice would have to be devised.

**WebHead** · June 14th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by a d e p t

After much meditating upon this, I have to agree.

It sounds too complicated as it stands.

The premise is interesting, but another method of putting it into practice would have to be devised.

Well the part that REALLY confus-ed me was version 12 reva.34 and under chapter 3 section 1b of that book. I had it down pat up until that part. Especially that one part about "mind control" and "...is what you need in order to accomplish this is a corkscrew, 3 thumb tacks and a syphon..."

**jitBob** · June 14th, 2004, 04:21 PM

So the party of the first part desires to portray the party of the second part. The party of the first part petitions the party of the second part with a document declaring his intentions and the means of fulfilling those intentions. The party of the second part may or may not accept the wishes of the party of the first part and decline the the entire proposal, in which case the deal is kaput, or the party of the second part may enter into negotiations with the party of the first part to reach mutual acquesence on the protrayal of the party of the second part by the party of the first part. Do I have it?

**WebHead** · June 14th, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by jitBob

So the party of the first part desires to portray the party of the second part. The party of the first part petitions the party of the second part with a document declaring his intentions and the means of fulfilling those intentions. The party of the second part may or may not accept the wishes of the party of the first part and decline the the entire proposal, in which case the deal is kaput, or the party of the second part may enter into negotiations with the party of the first part to reach mutual acquesence on the protrayal of the party of the second part by the party of the first part. Do I have it?

LOL,.. lawyer talk.