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]