The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
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.
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>
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?
Wash on
0
JakarrdIn the belly ofOklahomaRegistered Userregular
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]"?
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.
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?
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].
Posts
Which [chat] is [chat]?
This chat's the real one I think.
there's like no effort in that other one
are you only being nice because you want something
if you can chat in it, it is a [chat]
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1sr_pVyOuE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3RUnx9svM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbmRtSQqNKQ
What's the riot about?
Is that odd to you folks?
Negative Ghostrider, the [chat]pattern is full!
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>
sounds like you're about to want some butts
speaking of butts...
hello SiG!!
pa pa americano
Well no shit. With all those cocks jammed in your mouth it's got to be a detriment to rolling your rs.
Goat shortage. Lots of sexually frustrated Irish.
huehuehuehuehuehuehue
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?
Brazillian wax?
gibe moni plos
you terrible person
Stop, you're killing Troy!
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]"?
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.
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?
the last time I'd gotten through a book before last week or so was january
ugh
...and now my head hurts. Too early for meta [chat].
Chabon Chat has cured you