Social engineering

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

What social engineering is[edit]

A chicken uses its amazing social engineering powers on these two fine men. They stopped waiting for the bus afterwards and left in disgust

"Social engineering is social engineering."

"No you're wrong. It's social engineering."

"Ah but I beg to differ. This is not a case of social engineering at all. What we have here is plain and simple social engineering."

"No, no, no, it is social engineering. You just have to not get it confused with the very similar yet completely independent aspect called social engineering."

"I don't know why you complicate things so much. Either it is social engineering, or it is social engineering. And it clearly is social engineering, so I can see no way it could be confused with social engineering. Or even a remotely related subject such as social engineering."

"You are confusing the whole issue. On one hand, we have social engineering, which is clearly not social engineering. On the other hand, we have social engineering, which, despite similarities, is not social engineering. Once you realize the underlying structure, you will see that social engineering is, in fact, social engineering."

"Whoah! Don't think your usual tactics will confuse me this time! In the first place, it was clearly stated that it was social engineering, not social engineering; second, when you write "social engineering", you're not differentiating social engineering from social engineering, and a hurried reader might even think that you meant social engineering instead."

"Oh, the humanity! Why can't we all agree with this simple fact: it is social engineering!"

"Sit down, have a drink, relax... you're just going to have to accept that it's only social engineering."

"Don't think that you'll be able to drink me up to the obviously wrong conclusion that it is social engineering - I know it is social engineering, and I have footnotes to prove it!"

"One has to be one with social engineering not to confuse it with social engineering and see in their souls social engineering for what it really is: social engineering."

"It is quite obvious that you are being mislead here by a number of your correspondents, as is eminently apparent by their correspondence, which is social engineering while also not. As any social engineer who has been socially engineered to understand social engineering can tell you, social engineering is social engineering while social engineering that is not social engineering is also social engineering. When one understands this it soon becomes apparent that the understanding or not of social engineering is also social engineering. And, in understanding this one also understands that those who are not socially engineered to understand social engineering are also socially engineered even when this may not be recognised by those who are socially engineered and by those who are not."

What social engineering really should be[edit]

"Social engineering should be social engineering."

"No you're wrong. It should be social engineering."

"Ah but I beg to differ. This is not a case of social engineering at all. What we should have here is plain and simple social engineering."

"No, no, no, it should be social engineering. You just have to not get it confused with the very similar yet completely independent aspect called social engineering."

"I don't know why you complicate things so much. Either it should be social engineering, or it should be social engineering. And it clearly should be social engineering, so I can see no way it could be confused with social engineering. Or even a remotely related subject such as social engineering."

"You are confusing the whole issue. On one hand, we should have social engineering, which clearly should not be social engineering. On the other hand, we should have social engineering, which, despite similarities, should not be social engineering. Once you realize the underlying structure, you will see that social engineering should be, in fact, social engineering."

"Whoah! Don't think your usual tactics will confuse me this time! In the first place, it was clearly stated that it should have been social engineering, not social engineering; second, when you write "social engineering", you're not differentiating social engineering from social engineering, and a hurried reader might even think that you meant social engineering instead."

"Oh, the humanity! Why can't we all agree with this simple fact: it should be social engineering!"

"Sit down, have a drink, relax... you're just going to have to accept that it should only be social engineering."

"Don't think that you'll be able to drink me up to the obviously wrong conclusion that it should be social engineering - I know it should be social engineering, and I should have footnotes to prove it!"

"One has to be one with social engineering not to confuse it with social engineering and see in their souls social engineering for what it really should be: social engineering."

"It is quite obvious that you are being mislead here by a number of your correspondents, as is eminently apparent by their correspondence, which should be social engineering while also not. As any social engineer who has been socially engineered to understand social engineering can tell you, social engineering should be social engineering while social engineering that is not social engineering should also be social engineering. When one understands this it soon becomes apparent that the understanding or not of social engineering should also be social engineering. And, in understanding this one also understands that those who are not socially engineered to understand social engineering are also socially engineered even when this may not be recognised by those who are socially engineered and by those who are not."