User talk:Erich

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • to answer your question, i do. "e-SO-SI-CHE-ES". go on, say it out loud. it's from a bunch of spaghetti with sausage sauce. i wondered why they'd called it what they did and then it hit me and i groaned. sorry you can't see it. perhaps you'd like to explain what it means if it doesn't mean that? --Evilkolbot 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • ok you did. i still think mine is worse. what have socks got to do with anything? --Evilkolbot 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
      • --Erich 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
        • you posting on the forums (from, it appears the first result from google for the phrase itself) proves nothing. i ask again. what have socks got to do with anything? especially an item made from bleeding SAUSAGES. --Evilkolbot 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Jesus Christ man, SPELL SOCKS. Out loud. Skullhead also mentioned two posts after mine that it was chiefly a bi lingual joke. Back in the 90s there was a radio commercial that did the joke as well. S-O (eso) C (si) K (que) S (es). It spells SOCKS.--Erich 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
            • i'm not disagreeing with you about that. you, and the rest of the internet, are absolutely right. however, i would still contend that if you say the phrase out loud as outlined in the first post you'll hear sausages. which, i contend, is entirely appropriate for the name, given its genesis. and i still don't get what any of this has to do with socks. --Evilkolbot 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok. Put it back then. I think its entirely wrong, but I could be wrong as well, and I apologize for my snark. I just think that wasn't intended, as it's a stretch to assume that you'd take a regional pronunciation as an approach to an already established joke, despite it being plausible if you really attempt to stretch it.--Erich 20:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
                • i think that's my problem. otherwise there isn't a joke. although i'm prepared to accept that there is a joke and i don't get it. --Evilkolbot 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
                • (that is, no joke as in "that's what it is" and "socks" really aren't funny in context. skullhead may be overfond of the hissy fit, but he knows funny, and he's wildly creative. thinking about it it is unlikely that the sausages pronunciation was meant (unless that's how they talk in the bit of mexico closest to mesa) but that leaves me even more puzzled. why use this recycled jone here, and why now. were the ads for sausages?) --Evilkolbot 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • To be fair, yes, if you pronounce "que" as "che" and ignore the first syllable, then "Eso Si Que Es" pronounced as "Soh-see-chay-ess" will sound sorta vaguely like "sausages" if you say it really quickly. The only problem with that is that you have to pronounce one word entirely wrong and ignore half of another in order to even get to "Soh-see-chay-ess", and that's a big stretch. - The Wrassedragon 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

jar of psychoses (The Crackpot Mystic)

  • re: ability to repeat it: thanks! --Fig bucket 00:23, 21 January 2013 (CET)

vials of colored slime

Just because Jick gave holder some special permissions to place quest items in his DC (and even if it was an item normal players could put in, such as pirate fledges), we never place collection tags on quest items. — Cool12309 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we should change this. I think we SHOULD have collections on quest items. Want me to make a discussion topic?--Cannonfire40 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh? There have been collections on things like this for as long as I've seen the wiki, and I joined 9/2008. Custom items that only 1 person has, quest items that used to not be flagged, items given to Kol Con contest winners, etc etc. I put collection data on a vial of mojo (and others that Mr. Magnifico, not HoS, has) ~12/2010, and heard no one complain about that. So please, tell me where there's a written rule that says what you're telling me. Thanks. (I just edited this to be a response to your question, but I want to make it clear that I agree with Cannon)~Erich t/c 02:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ... I didn't notice you undid my revisions. That was not necessary. I won't start a revision war, but I am going to say that yes, if there's a collection, it should be shown. Otherwise you should go through the whole wiki and take out things like 1 Meat, and make sure you go back in time and enforce this rule. Boldtext! ~Erich t/c
    • Established Standards agrees with Cool. I'm happy to see the collection on items that at least one player has in his/her display case, however, so I'm siding with Erich and Cannon here. I think the rational for not putting them on quest items was to not have empty collections when normally there would be no one with them. That has changed. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 02:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks to cannon pm'ming me, my stance as changed. We do need a discussion to change it. (by the way, 1 Meat is not a quest item, so that example is not valid.) — Cool12309 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
      • FWIW, 1 Meat is a custom item which is included in the Established Standards for "no collections". --Club (#66669) (Talk) 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)