|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 100 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 71 of 100:
| 
Dec 4 09:56 UTC 2002 |
Maybe language isn't as much about original as it is
about exploring what's common and sharing.
But I still like, "Be be to to not or".
|
remmers
|
|
response 72 of 100:
|
Dec 4 11:29 UTC 2002 |
No, that's "Not or be be to to".
Oops, I used quotes.
|
mary
|
|
response 73 of 100:
|
Dec 4 11:46 UTC 2002 |
What's "no" about it. I realize you say, "Not or be be to to"
all the time. But I was going for an original comment.
So "no" doesn't apply.
|
remmers
|
|
response 74 of 100:
|
Dec 4 12:06 UTC 2002 |
But it's harder to say. Must we sacrifice comfort for the sake of
originality?
|
md
|
|
response 75 of 100:
|
Dec 4 12:21 UTC 2002 |
You two's dinner table must be a laff riot.
|
janc
|
|
response 76 of 100:
|
Dec 4 13:36 UTC 2002 |
Well, if we can't be original, at least we can be compact. A programmer
might quote Hamlet compactly as "2B|~2B". Of course, that would alway
evaluate to negative one, so a better way to say it would be "-1" which
is simply "true". Actually, evaluating our statements before saying
them would aide in compactness enormously, if not doing much for
originality.
I'd say, "Tautology. Rhetorical question. Absurdity. Humorous aside.
Brilliant observation," and you'd all applaud me roundly.
|
remmers
|
|
response 77 of 100:
|
Dec 4 14:48 UTC 2002 |
TASI, IMHO.
|
other
|
|
response 78 of 100:
|
Dec 4 14:54 UTC 2002 |
OUCH.
|
fitz
|
|
response 79 of 100:
|
Dec 5 12:14 UTC 2002 |
Would #0 extend to sounds as well--music is just the same notes being repeated
over and over again. Yep. Same old notes, unless you start playing
micro-step compositions.
I'll just play a chromatic scale and retire the instrument.
|
remmers
|
|
response 80 of 100:
|
Dec 5 14:15 UTC 2002 |
Don't stop with music. Apply #0 to all of existence. After all, the
universe is just the same old protons and neutrons and electrons and
other elementary stuff used over and over.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 100:
|
Dec 5 15:58 UTC 2002 |
It really is boring. Just think, all electrons are indistinguishable.
|
other
|
|
response 82 of 100:
|
Dec 5 17:25 UTC 2002 |
Ah! But are they inEXtinguishable?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 100:
|
Dec 5 18:37 UTC 2002 |
Not entirely - when one meets a positron, they both go pfffttt! (and
apparently electron-positron pairs arise spontaneously from the "fabric of
space", so eventually all electrons should get recycled).
|
mary
|
|
response 84 of 100:
|
Dec 5 18:49 UTC 2002 |
How Buddhist.
|
other
|
|
response 85 of 100:
|
Dec 5 20:21 UTC 2002 |
How Green.
|
fitz
|
|
response 86 of 100:
|
Dec 6 10:14 UTC 2002 |
Are you positive?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 87 of 100:
|
Dec 6 21:16 UTC 2002 |
No, I'm electric.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 88 of 100:
|
Dec 7 02:48 UTC 2002 |
I'm eclectic.
|
other
|
|
response 89 of 100:
|
Dec 7 06:47 UTC 2002 |
i'm esotEric.
|
scott
|
|
response 90 of 100:
|
Dec 7 14:03 UTC 2002 |
I'm eScott, a cutting edge new Web experience! Visit to win points, get
enough points and I'll drop by to install a "Pizza" key on your computer
keyboard!
|
tsty
|
|
response 91 of 100:
|
Dec 8 09:32 UTC 2002 |
i;m TranSistor - solid state!
|
gelinas
|
|
response 92 of 100:
|
Dec 9 02:49 UTC 2002 |
Frozen?
|
tsty
|
|
response 93 of 100:
|
Dec 13 03:54 UTC 2002 |
i can be melted ....
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 94 of 100:
|
Dec 13 10:52 UTC 2002 |
Funk will never die!
|
tsty
|
|
response 95 of 100:
|
Dec 16 08:27 UTC 2002 |
... and this funk stuff relates how?
|
