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?
I don't think so. At those points, the [chat] is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. It is focused on a single topic, making it (according to our acting function hypothesis) a discussion thread, but at the same time the thread has not lost its function to facilitate [chat], thus remaining a [chat]. Thus, it is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. What implications does this possibility for a thread to A) have two or more simultaneous functions and for some subset of those functions to be seemingly contradictory have?
Later today I'll find out if my moving really is delayed to July 1st. In light of the tensions at Short Strand, It's kinda given a stronger urgency to leave, though the road I'm actually on has been pretty peaceful.
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?
I don't think so. At those points, the [chat] is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. It is focused on a single topic, making it (according to our acting function hypothesis) a discussion thread, but at the same time the thread has not lost its function to facilitate [chat], thus remaining a [chat]. Thus, it is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. What implications does this possibility for a thread to A) have two or more simultaneous functions and for some subset of those functions to be seemingly contradictory have?
Ooh, we could have any number of thread combinations, different variations of [chat], a good justification for multiple [chat] threads, each performing a function aside from being a [chat], lower in priority to its primary function. This requires further study.
Wash on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Commenter: “Edy Williams”
Site: Huffington Post
Wait, Edy Wiliams the actress who had parts in The Beverly
Hillbillies, Lost In Space, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, among many others, and was married to Russ Meyer, who directed Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill?: Yes. It’s actually her.
Interests: Animals, celebrities
...
On news that Knut, a newly deceased polar bear, might be stuffed:
“Knut ‘stuffed’? I was Taken back, stunned, isnt this very Drastic? If perhaps one could be ‘knut,’ would you want to be? Dont think so. Seems poor taste. Would jokes, ridicule follow. Let poor ‘knut’ REST IN PEACE. He gave his all, four years. Seems Not appropriate. Its not like ‘wax museum’ or a Mannequin. This was an adored, loved, Living Bear. Isnt there a way in better Taste. A Magnificent Statue? There are famous sculptors in Germany, a Donation for ‘K’!”
Posts
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
What are you having for lunch/dinner/supper/breakfast, [chat]?
I don't think so. At those points, the [chat] is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. It is focused on a single topic, making it (according to our acting function hypothesis) a discussion thread, but at the same time the thread has not lost its function to facilitate [chat], thus remaining a [chat]. Thus, it is both a [chat] and not a [chat]. What implications does this possibility for a thread to A) have two or more simultaneous functions and for some subset of those functions to be seemingly contradictory have?
Supper, italian breaded porkchops for the most part. And a healthy dose of soda pop.
The girl loved it. I'm giving it a solid "meh"
I just can't get over the stunning absence of anything even seeming to be remotely related to motivation.
Except Parallax, who basically had all the motivation he needed.
Pizza, when it shows up.
I am having a nutella sandwich for breakfast.
snacking on pretzels.
Also a mix of grape fruit juice, grenadine, and cherry vodka.
That sounds delicious.
Later today I'll find out if my moving really is delayed to July 1st. In light of the tensions at Short Strand, It's kinda given a stronger urgency to leave, though the road I'm actually on has been pretty peaceful.
add some chocolate to that sandwich
Ooh, we could have any number of thread combinations, different variations of [chat], a good justification for multiple [chat] threads, each performing a function aside from being a [chat], lower in priority to its primary function. This requires further study.
it's awesome
just what i needed
bio mom posts on her wall
Raining hard... Very tired n wet
some dude i don't know responds
DAMN U R STILL WET I AM THAT GOOD
Been playing around with it some tonight. Came across it while looking for software updates and a blog mentioned it.
he made it rain on her, you see
d-dang...
I'm pretty sure you know Kakos
Either he's a rain deity or he has a large bladder. I think Chu needs to use Occam's razor to determine which one is more likely.
Thats just messed up. Im so sorry chu that you ad to see that.
YES SENJ THAT IS ONE READING
And this is how I lose weight.
accident
'accidents'
I meant to link it
Seriously, this shit is gold:
Yes, young starfighter, go watch it!