Name this gambit (or is it already named?)

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #4 (isolation #0) » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:02 pm

Mastermind of Sin wrote:<3 PJ, too

QFT

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #6 (isolation #1) » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:28 pm

Perhaps it should be called "Stoofer's Gambit".

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #7 (isolation #2) » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:29 pm

@CES: Your post is a classic case of mith's observation (and not Thok's Corollary).

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #14 (isolation #3) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:11 am

Mr. Flay wrote:
mith wrote:Note to self: "Gimmick" Day.
If you do this, you might point out to folks that they can record their gimmicks on the wiki under Category:Trademarks.

I wish I had a gimmick...

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #16 (isolation #4) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:25 am

Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:
Mr Stoofer wrote:@CES: Your post is a classic case of mith's observation (and not Thok's Corollary).
It certainly isn't Thok's Corollary, but you act in accordance with it so often that any post by you in one of the Discussion forums reminds me of it. And I don't think my vote was really a case of mith's principle, as it was inspired directly by one of your posts, rather than voting early on before you could get to the thread.

This may be my favourite post ever.