Mercurial > repo
view paste/paste.4459 @ 109:1fd337b8f19e
<elliott> delquote 501
author | HackBot |
---|---|
date | Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:15:41 +0000 |
parents | e037173e0012 |
children |
line wrap: on
line source
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]