--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/paste/paste.4459	Thu Feb 16 19:42:32 2012 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
+2009-10-22.txt:03:10:46: -!- Oranjer has joined #esoteric.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:10:59: <Oranjer> hello!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:11:11: <Oranjer> What is going on here?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:12:14: <Oranjer> awwww _0x44!!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:12:20: <Oranjer> anyone here?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:12:49: <Oranjer> anyone sentient and autonomous enough to comprehend the meanings behind these words?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:13:56: <Oranjer> uh
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:21: <Oranjer> fungot, what you just said does not nearly begin to prove your sentience
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:22: <fungot> Oranjer: i figure that this *is* an unstable version of chicken?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:33: <Oranjer> ummm
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:33: <coppro> Oranjer: meet Markov
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:38: <Oranjer> hello, Markov
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:46: <Oranjer> as in, a Markov chain?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:53: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:58: <Oranjer> is fungot a bot?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:14:59: <fungot> Oranjer: it is a good way too much
+2009-10-22.txt:03:15:04: <Oranjer> yeah, it is
+2009-10-22.txt:03:15:57: <Oranjer> fungot doesn't seem very coherent
+2009-10-22.txt:03:15:59: <fungot> Oranjer: but was walk-lisp properly tail-recursive? ( else i will tell em... :-p something...
+2009-10-22.txt:03:16:23: <Oranjer> fungot, parantheses require a closing ) to be grammatically correct where I come from
+2009-10-22.txt:03:16:24: <fungot> Oranjer: which is quite irrelevant if the rest are possible optimizations to be done
+2009-10-22.txt:03:16:31: <Oranjer> my gods, he's right
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:11: <Oranjer> fungot, listen to me
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:12: <fungot> Oranjer: that was mean, stop doing homework problems.'
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:24: <Oranjer> dammit, fungot can also predict the future
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:25: <fungot> Oranjer: unicode defines " case folding" which is fine but how could i have to be a
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:32: <Oranjer> a what, fungot?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:40: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:44: <Oranjer> fungot
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:51: <Oranjer> FUNGOT
+2009-10-22.txt:03:18:58: <Oranjer> now I just feel ridiculous
+2009-10-22.txt:03:19:03: <ehird> Oranjer: It ignores you after a time so that WE DON'T GET PEOPLE SPAMMING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BOTS!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:19:15: <Oranjer> sorry, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:03:19:39: <Oranjer> I am a lonely man in a lonely world in a lonely channel in a lonely state of mind
+2009-10-22.txt:03:19:43: <ehird> Oranjer: fungot is written in befunge
+2009-10-22.txt:03:20:16: <Oranjer> yep? ha!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:20:26: <Oranjer> what languages do you mean, though?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:20:39: <Oranjer> ooh! haha
+2009-10-22.txt:03:20:41: <Oranjer> nope!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:21:01: <Oranjer> ummm
+2009-10-22.txt:03:21:54: <ehird> Oranjer: You seem quite confused.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:21:55: <Oranjer> actually, coppro recommended this channel because I wanted to talk about my attempts at creating a universal language akin to that conceptualized by Leibniz
+2009-10-22.txt:03:22:23: <Oranjer> HEYlo
+2009-10-22.txt:03:22:51: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:23:05: <Oranjer> everyone either fights it or does it
+2009-10-22.txt:03:23:31: <Oranjer> how can one use oklo- as an affix?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:23:46: <Oranjer> also, I have actually heard of esoteric languages before
+2009-10-22.txt:03:23:51: <Oranjer> brainfuck and all that
+2009-10-22.txt:03:24:16: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:24:30: <Oranjer> I have heard that said before, coppro
+2009-10-22.txt:03:25:15: <Oranjer> is it addictive?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:25:27: <Oranjer> is it mind altering?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:26:01: <Oranjer> Hilbert-space? is that a meta, a mesa, an alter, or an inter space?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:26:36: <Oranjer> oh, okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:26:54: <Oranjer> I just use ideosphere or memosphere or psychosphere myself
+2009-10-22.txt:03:27:31: <Oranjer> yay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:09: <Oranjer> damn self-supporting existences
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:31: <Oranjer> what's Feather?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:36: <Oranjer> hello, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:36: <ehird> Oranjer: NO NO NO
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:43: <Oranjer> ahhhhhhhhh
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:45: <Oranjer> sorry
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:49: <Oranjer> SHIT
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:50: <Oranjer> SHIT
+2009-10-22.txt:03:28:52: <Oranjer> SHIT
+2009-10-22.txt:03:29:15: <Oranjer> sanity? I know not what you speaketh ofeth
+2009-10-22.txt:03:30:14: <ehird> Oranjer: To grossly misrepresent it to a degree that borders on being a lie, and insult ais523 by painting it as more simple than it is,
+2009-10-22.txt:03:30:57: <Oranjer> what?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:31:00: <ehird> Oranjer: It basically involves programs modifying the Feather interpreter (itself written in Feather). This interpreter is then used to retroactively run all of the program from the start, so that the change "always was", in a sense. Except it also changes the interpreter used to interpret the interpreter that interpreted the program, and so on to infinite depth.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:31:21: <ehird> Oranjer: You change the interpreter, which causes an infinite chain of retroactive reinterpretations of the interpreter, and then finally of the program.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:31:50: <Oranjer> but it cannot actually go through time, correct?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:32:23: <ehird> Oranjer: Surprisingly no!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:32:45: <Oranjer> bah, doubtful--even Hofstadter could not escape time
+2009-10-22.txt:03:33:27: <Oranjer> amnesia is not time travel
+2009-10-22.txt:03:33:37: <Oranjer> also, Halting Problem!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:34:10: <Oranjer> haha
+2009-10-22.txt:03:34:12: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:35:26: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:35:31: <Oranjer> what isn;t?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:35:35: <Oranjer> *'
+2009-10-22.txt:03:35:50: <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages, such as those that can solve the halting problem.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:36:10: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:36:19: <Oranjer> I doubt their existence
+2009-10-22.txt:03:36:37: <Oranjer> heh
+2009-10-22.txt:03:36:39: <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages definitely exist.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:36:57: <Oranjer> I still doubt their existence, regardless of your anecdotal support
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:07: <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:11: <ehird> Oranjer: They certainly exist, they're just not implementable.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:31: <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:41: <coppro> Oranjer: as ehird says, almost certainly no
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:42: <ehird> Oranjer: No.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:49: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:37:59: <Oranjer> ...that's what I meant, ehird...
+2009-10-22.txt:03:38:13: <ehird> Oranjer: So how can you doubt their existence?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:38:36: <Oranjer> I cannot, if they can be modeled, then they exist
+2009-10-22.txt:03:39:28: <Oranjer> I'm a modal realist, by the way
+2009-10-22.txt:03:39:38: <Oranjer> it has no bearing, just thought i should let y'all know
+2009-10-22.txt:03:40:15: <Oranjer> anyways
+2009-10-22.txt:03:40:21: <Oranjer> what did this all start with again?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:41:19: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:41:40: <Oranjer> Besardles, I intend to create a functionally universal language
+2009-10-22.txt:03:41:45: <Oranjer> Can y'all help?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:03: <Oranjer> ouch
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:09: <Oranjer> that hurt's more than you think
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:14: <coppro> Oranjer: no one helps in here.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:17: <Oranjer> :(
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:22: <ehird> Oranjer: Your abuse of the apostrophe hurts even more!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:41: <Oranjer> that's preposterous's
+2009-10-22.txt:03:42:54: <Oranjer> 'tis okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:43:19: <Oranjer> okay
+2009-10-22.txt:03:43:29: <Oranjer> E-prime!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:43:58: <Oranjer> no! E-Prime!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:44:24: <Oranjer> haha
+2009-10-22.txt:03:44:41: <Oranjer> dammit, now I have to find an Optimus quote and write it in E-Prime
+2009-10-22.txt:03:45:23: <Oranjer> Synergetics, as per Buckminster Fuller?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:47:14: <Oranjer> ehird? have I destroyed you?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:47:44: <Oranjer> yeah
+2009-10-22.txt:03:47:55: <Oranjer> I am saddened that I could never meet him or Borges
+2009-10-22.txt:03:48:14: <Oranjer> how does that bot know about buckminster?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:48:47: <Oranjer> I..thought...but all that jumbled nonsense after I asked "What's Feather?"
+2009-10-22.txt:03:49:03: <Oranjer> yeah, but what he says is useful
+2009-10-22.txt:03:49:25: <Oranjer> also, I guess you're right--the best book on Synergetics was actually a book-wide review on Fuller's book
+2009-10-22.txt:03:49:44: <Oranjer> why not?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:49:59: <Oranjer> 'tis my favorite quote from a movie I never saw
+2009-10-22.txt:03:50:07: <Oranjer> "The Idea is valid regardless of the Origin"
+2009-10-22.txt:03:50:22: <Oranjer> (I am also an Epistemological Anarchist)
+2009-10-22.txt:03:50:54: <Oranjer> Synergetics
+2009-10-22.txt:03:51:17: <Oranjer> building a mile-diameter floating geodesic dome by heating the inside up by one degree
+2009-10-22.txt:03:52:14: <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:52:38: <Oranjer> I have some awesomes quotes from the man
+2009-10-22.txt:03:53:01: <Pthing> <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:53:07: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:53:16: <Oranjer> ehird, no! at least back up your insults!
+2009-10-22.txt:03:53:39: <Oranjer> no...?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:53:52: <Oranjer> now now, ehird, that's not it at all
+2009-10-22.txt:03:55:02: <Oranjer> I merely suggest that there is no concrete boundary between "science" and "pseudoscience", and that therefore a theory's "rightness" can only be determined by its validity to reality, and that that can only be determined by its usefulness
+2009-10-22.txt:03:57:17: <Oranjer> now, now, Pthing, we can select at random and then textualize any fragment of any work of science, and reach the same "this guy's a kook 'cause he uses jargon I don't know"
+2009-10-22.txt:03:57:48: <Oranjer> http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html
+2009-10-22.txt:03:57:52: <Pthing> Oranjer, now now stop saying "now now" like a patronising faggot
+2009-10-22.txt:03:57:55: <Oranjer> that's a link to that book
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:17: <Oranjer> now now, Pthing, you know namecalling is on the bottom of the disagreement hierarchy
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:18: <ehird> Unless he's actually saying that Oranjer is acting homoesxual.
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:22: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:35: <Oranjer> have you seen it?
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:38: <ehird> Oranjer: please, say that wasn't a paul graham reference
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:42: <Oranjer> uhhhh
+2009-10-22.txt:03:58:47: <Oranjer> oops? is that taboo? sorry
+2009-10-22.txt:03:59:14: <Oranjer> *fecespalm* just sounds awful
+2009-10-22.txt:03:59:53: <Oranjer> only if you fail to provide a framework of definitions
+2009-10-22.txt:04:00:13: <Oranjer> oh? you can tell the difference between the two, Pthing, without knowing what the words mean?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:00:22: <Oranjer> oh, sorry, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:00:43: <Oranjer> oh, no, I can't Pthing, I just like to be confrontational
+2009-10-22.txt:04:01:28: <ehird> Oranjer: by the way, oerjan may sue you for name infringement.
+2009-10-22.txt:04:01:32: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:04:01:48: <Oranjer> I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:02:23: <Oranjer> also, you caught me, Pthing--I do not understand anything Buckminster says--I've never read a single thing he's ever written
+2009-10-22.txt:04:02:37: <Oranjer> heh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:03:12: <Oranjer> hehehahaha
+2009-10-22.txt:04:03:26: <Oranjer> I have no idea what we're doing, anyway
+2009-10-22.txt:04:03:54: <Oranjer> I would ask how this all started, but I learned my lesson before
+2009-10-22.txt:04:04:09: <Oranjer> oh? then I shall look at it again
+2009-10-22.txt:04:04:56: <Oranjer> yeah no, I ain't getting anything outa it--I don't know what half the words mean
+2009-10-22.txt:04:05:17: <Oranjer> I wonder if Buckminster built up from earlier definitions of those words?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:05:33: <Oranjer> heh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:05:56: <Oranjer> and throw in feminism, of course
+2009-10-22.txt:04:06:23: <Oranjer> I mean, shrill feminism, where history is masculine and whatnot
+2009-10-22.txt:04:06:49: <Oranjer> Sokal affair mk. II?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:07:04: <ehird> Oranjer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
+2009-10-22.txt:04:07:08: <Oranjer> ooh!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:07:15: <Oranjer> I remember that without even clicking on it
+2009-10-22.txt:04:07:22: <ehird> Oranjer: haha
+2009-10-22.txt:04:08:17: <Oranjer> I would argue that nothing is entirely nonsense, if it has functionality
+2009-10-22.txt:04:08:59: <Oranjer> haha, ehird, perhaps his consistency is beyond you?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:09:20: <Oranjer> also, ehird, switching positions is a good thing, I've heard
+2009-10-22.txt:04:09:48: <Oranjer> it means one is more focused with reaching the truth, as opposed to merely wanting to convince others of your own rightness
+2009-10-22.txt:04:10:00: <Oranjer> monkeys n' typewriters, eh?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:10:41: <Oranjer> ah, ehird, but all things exist as examples to learn from--even bullshit
+2009-10-22.txt:04:10:55: <Oranjer> hehe
+2009-10-22.txt:04:11:00: <Oranjer> 'pataphysics!!!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:11:40: <Oranjer> hehe
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:20: <Oranjer> hey, peoples, let the other person talk! oy vey!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:26: <Oranjer> y'all are talking over each other
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:35: <Oranjer> that's hardly good debate from
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:47: <ehird> Oranjer: with IRC, you can't make someone else's message unreadable; isn't it great
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:55: <Oranjer> ummm
+2009-10-22.txt:04:12:58: <Oranjer> okay, ehird?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:13:14: <Oranjer> quite simply
+2009-10-22.txt:04:13:23: <Oranjer> out of context is not in the meaning
+2009-10-22.txt:04:14:20: <Oranjer> as in, to avoid language games and talk past each other as much as possible, we should let the other person complete their thought
+2009-10-22.txt:04:14:22: <Oranjer> (just a thought)
+2009-10-22.txt:04:14:30: <Oranjer> I know how to!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:14:34: <Oranjer> bisociation, bitches!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:14:37: <Oranjer> (awwwwwww)
+2009-10-22.txt:04:16:13: <Oranjer> and of science in general, I would argue
+2009-10-22.txt:04:16:59: <Oranjer> but where would the functionality in subscribing "roundness" to both squares and circles?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:17:26: <Oranjer> also, the Euclidian approach favors circles to squares? I have seen no such thing--citations, please?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:17:39: <Oranjer> its use! can I use this?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:18:02: <ehird> Oranjer: Clearly, uniformness is desirable: there is no discrimination between the different parts of a shape.
+2009-10-22.txt:04:18:19: <Oranjer> for whatever the Observer wishes to use it for, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:04:18:40: <Oranjer> meh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:18:53: <Oranjer> very, well, Pthing, I shall think about this
+2009-10-22.txt:04:19:24: <Oranjer> as I have actually gone for some time assuming the definition of "functionality" as something hardly worth referring to
+2009-10-22.txt:04:19:47: <Oranjer> also, "It won't lead anywhere" is hardly evidence supporting its own claim
+2009-10-22.txt:04:20:08: <Oranjer> and yes, Pthing, it's not worth talking about because it has no use
+2009-10-22.txt:04:21:08: <Oranjer> Basically, I would argue that the only way to "prove" communication is if a goal is accomplished whose accomplishment's chances of occurring would have been greatly increased if the second party understood the communication
+2009-10-22.txt:04:21:48: <Oranjer> and therefore, I would say a theory has functionality if the Observer can use it to accomplish a goal
+2009-10-22.txt:04:22:30: <Oranjer> haha, what?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:22:32: <Oranjer> http://nobodyscores.loosenutstudio.com/index.php?id=534
+2009-10-22.txt:04:22:35: <Oranjer> this reminds me of that
+2009-10-22.txt:04:23:08: <Oranjer> I thought you said "Chastity is no way of life! God can't spell!"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:23:54: <Oranjer> bah, I long ago learned to avoid any assumption of knowing an "absolute truth"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:24:10: <Oranjer> I instead use "valid according to what I have observed of this universe"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:24:35: <Oranjer> yes, I do turn all so-called objectivist, absolute statements into subjective relativism
+2009-10-22.txt:04:24:36: <Oranjer> yay!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:24:51: <Oranjer> HAHA
+2009-10-22.txt:04:24:56: <Oranjer> THE FUTURE IS AWESOME
+2009-10-22.txt:04:26:20: <Oranjer> WHO AUTHORIZED THAT CHANGE
+2009-10-22.txt:04:26:49: <Oranjer> also, Jesus Fuckin' Houdini did this get outa hand
+2009-10-22.txt:04:27:37: <Oranjer> I just want to create a functionally universal language that explicitly refers to its own abstraction and that which it does not cover!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:28:11: <Oranjer> sorry
+2009-10-22.txt:04:28:40: <Oranjer> also, I have determined that all such "mental" planes only exist in the meta-, and as such cannot carry on into this space
+2009-10-22.txt:04:29:14: <Oranjer> :O
+2009-10-22.txt:04:29:15: <Oranjer> hardly
+2009-10-22.txt:04:29:48: <Oranjer> do you mean semantically empty because you do not know what I mean by the words I say, or because you know for a fact that what I say has no meaning?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:08: <Oranjer> there exists a distinct difference between the two
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:09: <Oranjer> awwww
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:13: <Oranjer> sorry, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:17: <Oranjer> :(
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:22: <Oranjer> :((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:31: <ehird> Oranjer: because I'm fairly sure any digression into what meaning you consider it to have will involve the words "subjectivity", "reality" and "epistemology"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:46: <Oranjer> I will try to avoid those words
+2009-10-22.txt:04:30:52: <Oranjer> haha
+2009-10-22.txt:04:31:08: <Oranjer> I love it when a movie ends in an existential crisis
+2009-10-22.txt:04:31:49: <Oranjer> I have yet to see a single one that does, I am afraid
+2009-10-22.txt:04:32:38: <Oranjer> very well, I shall amend my original statement as per your observation
+2009-10-22.txt:04:33:20: <Oranjer> /I feel like I would enjoy/ a movie that ends in an existential crisis, if indeed such a movie exists
+2009-10-22.txt:04:34:11: <Oranjer> you see, ehird? From what I have seen, E-prime makes explicit those things that normally divide most sides of a disagreement
+2009-10-22.txt:04:34:51: <Oranjer> yes, it is largely dealing with semantics
+2009-10-22.txt:04:34:53: <Oranjer> BUT
+2009-10-22.txt:04:34:59: <Oranjer> yes, madbrain
+2009-10-22.txt:04:35:02: <Oranjer> BUT
+2009-10-22.txt:04:35:10: <Oranjer> I have used it for years in all my official documents
+2009-10-22.txt:04:35:24: <Oranjer> and I gotta tell ya, it makes you seem hell of smarter
+2009-10-22.txt:04:35:50: <Oranjer> also, it has helped me cut through the curvy-turvies of most modern ethical dilemmas
+2009-10-22.txt:04:36:04: <Oranjer> I know!
+2009-10-22.txt:04:36:12: <Oranjer> I try to go beyond just removing "to be"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:03: <Oranjer> I also: try to avoid negations, try to avoid stative verbs, try to date and place my sentences, and try to make explicit the source(s) of the evidence my claims
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:20: <Oranjer> oh, bloody hell
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:27: <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:31: <Oranjer> heh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:47: <Oranjer> You disagree with sounding rehearsed why...?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:48: <ehird> Oranjer: remember? all truths are valid independently of their reasoning method
+2009-10-22.txt:04:37:57: <Oranjer> yes, quite
+2009-10-22.txt:04:38:02: <Oranjer> haha
+2009-10-22.txt:04:38:51: <Oranjer> hardly, ehird--I say an idea's validity is independent of its source
+2009-10-22.txt:04:38:54: <Oranjer> haha
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:06: <Oranjer> *sigh*
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:31: <Pthing> <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:45: <Oranjer> WHAT
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:47: <Oranjer> JESUS FUCK
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:54: <Oranjer> I have no "catchphrase"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:39:57: <Oranjer> yes, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:40:23: <Oranjer> I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity
+2009-10-22.txt:04:40:31: <Oranjer> I agree, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:40:46: <Oranjer> I merely stated an opinion of my own
+2009-10-22.txt:04:40:57: <Oranjer> you see, Pthing, that was hardly a catchphrase
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:04: <Oranjer> I can
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:13: <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:38: <Pthing> <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:42: <Oranjer> oh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:43: <Oranjer> huh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:49: <Oranjer> well, it was hardly intentional
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:57: <Oranjer> yes, madBRAIN
+2009-10-22.txt:04:41:59: <Oranjer> heh
+2009-10-22.txt:04:42:04: <ehird> madbrain: no, Oranjer is making bullshit and we're anti-bullshitting it :P
+2009-10-22.txt:04:42:26: <Oranjer> aye, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:42:49: <Oranjer> okay, Pthing, could you repeat what you said I should say in fewer words?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:43:20: <Oranjer> dammit
+2009-10-22.txt:04:43:23: <Oranjer> I forgot it
+2009-10-22.txt:04:43:48: <Oranjer> dammit
+2009-10-22.txt:04:44:13: <ehird> is it just me, or are we totally deconstructing Oranjer's reality piece by piece
+2009-10-22.txt:04:44:15: <Oranjer> Pthing, now you're just arguing semantics, and that's a dick move, and I fear it is made outa spite
+2009-10-22.txt:04:44:33: <Oranjer> actually, I suspected as muc, ehird
+2009-10-22.txt:04:45:02: <Oranjer> *sigh* Pthing, I believe you're operating under the misconception that I am using e-prime, now, in irc chat
+2009-10-22.txt:04:45:05: <Oranjer> but I am not
+2009-10-22.txt:04:45:41: <ehird> Oranjer: maybe instead of using e-prime you should disambiguate things like "you're arguing semantics"
+2009-10-22.txt:04:45:42: <Oranjer> a simple style choice, madbrain
+2009-10-22.txt:04:45:58: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:04:46:36: <Oranjer> I have forgotten what statement of mine you referenced when you suggested that I rephrase said statement using fewer words
+2009-10-22.txt:04:46:44: <ehird> damn Oranjer
+2009-10-22.txt:04:46:50: <Oranjer> sorry?
+2009-10-22.txt:04:46:58: <Oranjer> sure, ehird, why the fuck not
+2009-10-22.txt:04:47:14: <Oranjer> ooh, okay
+2009-10-22.txt:04:47:20: <Oranjer> yes, ehird, I prefer your version
+2009-10-22.txt:04:48:00: <Oranjer> yes, madbrain, it mainly uses it as a copula
+2009-10-22.txt:04:48:08: <Oranjer> *oy vey*
+2009-10-22.txt:04:49:14: <Oranjer> holy shit, ehird, I just reread the sentence you're criticizing, and it really is pretty bad
+2009-10-22.txt:04:49:26: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:04:49:34: <Oranjer> no, Pthing
+2009-10-22.txt:04:50:01: <Oranjer> heh
+[too many lines; stopping]