The Yiddish Policemen's [Chat]

Senjutsu · June 2011

Michael Chabon is a serious literary dude who writes some seriously geeky stuff, like alternate history Jewish Noir fiction

and swashbuckling Fafhrd-and-the-Grey-Mouser-ish adventures about Jewish bandits.

Spoiler:

And he edited literary genre fun-fic like McSweeney's Enchanted Chamber of Astonishing Stories

Also I've heard a rumor he might be Jewish.

Tox · June 2011

Wait, I'm confused.

Which [chat] is [chat]?

Cinders · June 2011

This bottle is empty.

This chat's the real one I think.

Wash · June 2011

Jewish? Noo...

Senjutsu · June 2011

This chat is chat

there's like no effort in that other one

Elendil · June 2011

please excuse me but I've got to ask
are you only being nice because you want something

Cinders · June 2011

What if Jacob starts rewarding laziness?

yalborap · June 2011

CLEARLY THE GREATER CHAT. LET US ALL SHUN BLOODYROAR, TOGETHER AS ONE.

Wash · June 2011

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

Quid · June 2011

Spoiler:

Suggestions?

Thomamelas · June 2011

Quid wrote: »

Spoiler:

中国计划生育政策

I. 介绍 - 虽然中国计划生育政策实施不太好，后果对中国和中国人非常有益的。一共我认为很好的后果比不好的实施更重要。

II. 正文
A。生育计划政策的应用和目标
1。在1979开始，主要地对城市居民，通常对汉族人
2。最终的目标是稳定中国的人口，减少中国环境，经济，社会的问题。

B。计划的好处
1。人口的稳定化
2。经济的改进
3。环境的影响

C。计划的批评和中国的反应
1。人口不平衡
2。人权的违反
3。中国人的支持

III. 结尾
A。摘要
1。政府的目标和打算对生育计划政策
2。政策对中国人很有好处
3。虽然政策是批评的，多半的中国人继续支持

B。虽然有一些问题，生育计划政策给中国现在的繁荣很有影响并继续提供好处。

Suggestions?

Stop speaking moon language.

Jacobkosh · June 2011

THIS IS THE TRUE CHAT

Senjutsu · June 2011

Fafhrd is really hard to spell

Jakarrd · June 2011

Heard this today and got hooked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1sr_pVyOuE

RMS Oceanic · June 2011

Second night of rioting in Belfast. It's happening not too far from me. :?

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot · June 2011

no hablo espanol

Cinders · June 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8MLqYNGKdI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3RUnx9svM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbmRtSQqNKQ

Thomamelas · June 2011

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

Second night of rioting in Belfast. It's happening not too far from me.

What's the riot about?

Tox · June 2011

Is it weird that I'm bummed out that I didn't get an A in History? I mean, I got a B, and I came really close to an A, but I really wanted to finish this summer term with two As.

Is that odd to you folks?

Jakarrd · June 2011

Jacobkosh wrote: »

THIS IS THE TRUE CHAT

Negative Ghostrider, the [chat]pattern is full!

Cinders · June 2011

Thanks yalb for reminding me of one of my favorite ways to chill.

Premier kakos · June 2011

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

But is the ability to act as a [chat] really the signifier of being a [chat]? If we [chat] in something that we don't call a [chat], is it still a [chat] or simply [chat]-like? </Poldy>

tyrannus · June 2011

Jakarrd wrote: »

Jacobkosh wrote: »

THIS IS THE TRUE CHAT

Negative Ghostrider, the [chat]pattern is full!

sounds like you're about to want some butts

speaking of butts...

hello SiG!!

Senjutsu · June 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »

no hablo espanol

pa pa americano

Quid · June 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »

no hablo espanol

Well no shit. With all those cocks jammed in your mouth it's got to be a detriment to rolling your rs.

Premier kakos · June 2011

Thomamelas wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

Second night of rioting in Belfast. It's happening not too far from me.

What's the riot about?

Goat shortage. Lots of sexually frustrated Irish.

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot · June 2011

we es brazilian

huehuehuehuehuehuehue

Wash · June 2011

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

But is the ability to act as a [chat] really the signifier of being a [chat]? If we [chat] in something that we don't call a [chat], is it still a [chat] or simply [chat]-like? </Poldy>

If a [chat] thread is posted in the woods and no one's around to post in it, is it still a [chat]? Or is a [chat] defined by its acting function, not whatever its intended?

Jakarrd · June 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »

we es brazilian

huehuehuehuehuehuehue

Brazillian wax?

Tox · June 2011

[chat] just got meta.

Organichu · June 2011

jajajajajajaj

Senjutsu · June 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »

we es brazilian

huehuehuehuehuehuehue

gibe moni plos

tyrannus · June 2011

Dread Pirate Arbuthnot wrote: »

we es brazilian

huehuehuehuehuehuehue

you terrible person

Wash · June 2011

Tox wrote: »

[chat] just got meta.

Stop, you're killing Troy!

Premier kakos · June 2011

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

But is the ability to act as a [chat] really the signifier of being a [chat]? If we [chat] in something that we don't call a [chat], is it still a [chat] or simply [chat]-like? </Poldy>

If a [chat] thread is posted in the woods and no one's around to post in it, is it still a [chat]? Or is a [chat] defined by its acting function, not whatever its intended?

If a [chat] is defined merely by it's acting function, then when does an object become a [chat]? Is it upon the moment of first [chat]ing? Also, if the ability to [chat] in a thing is removed, say by a mod locking said thing, does it cease to be a [chat]? Is it right for us to refer to them still as [chat]s? Should we not refer to them as "past threads that once was a [chat]"?

RMS Oceanic · June 2011

Thomamelas wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

Second night of rioting in Belfast. It's happening not too far from me.

What's the riot about?

Short version: The UVF is shit-stirring.

Slightly longer: Belfast is generally known by its compass directions (North Belfast, West Belfast etc). East Belfast is largely Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist, but there is a notable Catholic/Nationalist/Republican enclave near the River Lagan called the Short Strand. This has been where the rioting is going on. The Police reckon the UVF stirred up passions to try and put a stamp on their "turf".

It's always been a flashpoint for sectarian tensions, but it still sucks that it's happening. UVF can eat a dick.

Wash · June 2011

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

But is the ability to act as a [chat] really the signifier of being a [chat]? If we [chat] in something that we don't call a [chat], is it still a [chat] or simply [chat]-like? </Poldy>

If a [chat] thread is posted in the woods and no one's around to post in it, is it still a [chat]? Or is a [chat] defined by its acting function, not whatever its intended?

If a [chat] is defined merely by it's acting function, then when does an object become a [chat]? Is it upon the moment of first [chat]ing? Also, if the ability to [chat] in a thing is removed, say by a mod locking said thing, does it cease to be a [chat]? Is it right for us to refer to them still as [chat]s? Should we not refer to them as "past threads that once was a [chat]"?

More importantly, for those moments when [chat] seems to solidify temporarily on one topic, making it the focus of [chat] for some time, effectively turning the thread into a discussion thread for that topic, does [chat] cease to be a [chat] for that time until [chat] resumes its normal atmosphere?

Elendil · June 2011

I think I can read again

the last time I'd gotten through a book before last week or so was january

ugh

BobCesca · June 2011

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Premier kakos wrote: »

Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend wrote: »

Eh, a [chat]'s a [chat]

if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]

But is the ability to act as a [chat] really the signifier of being a [chat]? If we [chat] in something that we don't call a [chat], is it still a [chat] or simply [chat]-like? </Poldy>

If a [chat] thread is posted in the woods and no one's around to post in it, is it still a [chat]? Or is a [chat] defined by its acting function, not whatever its intended?

If a [chat] is defined merely by it's acting function, then when does an object become a [chat]? Is it upon the moment of first [chat]ing? Also, if the ability to [chat] in a thing is removed, say by a mod locking said thing, does it cease to be a [chat]? Is it right for us to refer to them still as [chat]s? Should we not refer to them as "past threads that once was a [chat]"?

More importantly, for those moments when [chat] seems to solidify temporarily on one topic, making it the focus of [chat] for some time, effectively turning the thread into a discussion thread for that topic, does [chat] cease to be a [chat] for that time until [chat] resumes its normal atmosphere?

...and now my head hurts. Too early for meta [chat].

Senjutsu · June 2011

Elendil wrote: »

I think I can read again

the last time I'd gotten through a book before last week or so was january

ugh

Chabon Chat has cured you

Cinders · June 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78Uqxd4YfA

Penny Arcade

The Yiddish Policemen's [Chat]

Posts