[ACCEPTED] Byfield - Combat Rogue

Your raid talent spec.
19/42/0 Combat Swords
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=f0eboeZGcV0bVzxMGRt

Your relevant stats for raiding.
1965 AP - 280 Hit - 27.36% Crit - 12 Expertise
http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Gorgonnash&n=Byfield (I decided to link my armory because I will be in my raiding gear for a few days)

Your raid experience. Both Pre and Post TBC experience.
Pre-BC: ZG/AQ20/MC/Naxxramas
Post-BC: Kara/ZA and Gruul - Illidan

Acknowledgment of agreement to our rules and times.
I will be available to attend every raid with all necessary consumables and am willing to sit out on a raid if necessary. I also understand the loot system.

Two major upgrades to your gear for your class/spec from SSC/TK.
Belt of One-Hundred Deaths - http://www.wowhead.com/?item=30106

A short guild history.
Rehab (Gorgonnash) - Transferred to raid more
Fail (Dark Iron) - Guild disbanded after guild leadership quitting WoW
Condiments (Korgath) - Friend's guild

The reason you are applying to Damage Done.
After my guild Fail disbanded I decided to take a small break from raiding to PvP; but have decided I would like to continue to raid on Gorgonnash with a few real life buddies.

Finally, tell us in one or two sentences why you would be a good addition to Damage Done.
I believe I am a good, 'well-rounded' player who has a good amount of raid and PvP experience. I believe I am a competent person who is very dedicated to WoW and raiding.

I approve of this rogue.

Sorry recruitment is currently closed.

I don't think you understand what has happened here. Byfield has apped to our guild. THE BYFIELD. Single handedly carried 2 guilds to Illidan and 2 warlocks and a shadow priest to 1850 all while having his mom and sister make him copious amounts of sandwiches all day because if they don't he enrages and wipes his house.

No seriously though Byfield is my bro IRL and he's pretty much one of the best players that has been on gorg so we should seriously invite him I talk to him everyday and he's for real endgame pro.

Quote :

Two major upgrades to your gear for your class/spec from SSC/TK

This question need to be edited =/

Comotosis wrote:

No seriously though Byfield is my bro IRL and he's pretty much one of the best players that has been on gorg so we should seriously invite him I talk to him everyday and he's for real endgame pro.

Good lord, Como has turned valley girl on us.

Quote :

Good lord, Como has turned valley girl on us.

I disagree, that sentence could have been longer with less punctuation.

Quote :

Good lord, Como has turned valley girl on us.

You must have some lazy valley girls in Vegas Z.

Following would be Como's statement from a CAli Valley girl:

"Omg No LIKE seriously though Byfield is LIKE my bro IRL and he's pretty much one of the best players that has been on gorg. So LIKE we should TOTALLY seriously invite him. OMG, LIKE I talk to him everyday and he's for real endgame pro."

I fail to see the difference.


Besides, "lazy valley girl?" For reals? C'mon now.

Whether or not we define como as a valley girl by z's or nag's definition, one truth stands out. Comparing their definitions reveals the nature of "Valley Girl." They both share the same requirement - grammatical deficiency (which I suppose is of a specific variety, but let us not jump to conclusions). Later I call this property "Valley Girl" potential.

This fact is apparent in that a mapping can be found from his original statement to the set of statements that would be classified as "valley girl" by nag/z.

Let N be the set of statements which classify as "valley girl" by nag and Z be the set of statements which classify as "valley girl" by zyzzx. Define C as the statement made by como.

Since C is an element of Z, z's mapping could in this case be the identitfy mapping.

Although nag's example of making como's statement "valley girl" did not provide a well defined mapping, we can estimate what such a mapping would be. I conjecture that simple additions of "LIKE" "OMG" etc... to a given statement (provided that the original statement has abysmal enough grammatical structure, which como's obviously qualifies as - proof I leave to the reader as an exercise), provide such a mapping. It is reasonable to suppose that there exists some mapping f such that f(C) is an element of N.

This is to say that, although C is not an element of N, while C is an element of Z, f(C) is in N. There is some property of C which allows it to be made into an element of N.

What you see here is that the fundamental nature of the original statement is at cause. And, although f may modify the statement through additions, it does not fundamentally alter the deficient grammatical structure. It is this structure which provides the potential to be made "Valley Girl." So, let us define C as "Valley Girl" potential.

Now this hints at isomorphism, but unfortunately f is not necessarily a bijection. f is not necessarily one-to-one since f could simply be a randomizing mapping - inserting "LIKE" randomly between words would probably be sufficient to make a grammatically deficient statement into a Nag-"Valley Girl" statement.

Thus, although functions mapping como's statement to Z-"Valley Girl" statements and Nag-"Valley Girl" statements are not isomorphisms necessarily, they have a nearly-isomorphic property in that they preserve the grammatical deficiency of como's original statement. They transfer "Valley Girl" potential.

So, I fail to see the difference as well.

Signed, sealed, delivered.