Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 75

Thread: ...not necessarily!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily! The evaporation of anti-chaos is always regulated through elections.

    Unless this is taking place in a dictatorship of course. In that case, the evaporation of anti-chaos is downright denied. Didn't happen. Never.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, many dictatorships have highly anti-chaotic elections, since the outcome is known in advance.

    Unless the outcome has been predetermined, but not publicly announced.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, when the public finds out that the election was a sham, they will storm the government and seize the throne.

    Of course, the dictator and his family will be long gone by then.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily! They might misinterpret the storming of their palace as a sign of worship.

    Then again, the resulting sudden massive evaporation of anti-chaos would lower the temperatures so much that the entire scene would be frozen for a zillion years. And that in itself would be a very anti-chaotic situation.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, you need to distinguish between static chaos and dynamic chaos.

    Although, static chaos is only chaotic under the discord metric.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily. Static chaos is chaotic under any metric, because any conversion to the metric system results in chaos.

    Unless of course, you happen to be a fan of Ultimate Chaos. Compared to that music, all the rest is New Order.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,778
    Not necessarily, you could attain Nirvana. (are we crossing over with the pun thread now?)


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily. These band names may appear to be chosen to make some cheap puns, but actually there's a deep philosophical meaning behind them.

    Then again, there is a deep philosophical meaning behind any band name.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,224
    not necessarily so, I had a band named the In Pact, or at least I was part of it and the name was spectacularly shallow since it could have been Impact if we had had enough space on the form. And really is the dialectic a band name anyway. They are all shallow and noisy like kid's pools.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,778
    Not necessarily, but keep in mind that people do tend to see profoundness in the most throwaway of lines when it comes to art. It's a kind of pareidolia.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    Not necessarily. If what seems to you a throwaway line was created by an actual artist, it by definition is profound. At least to the artist.

    On the other hand, there may be some fake artist who have fooled the critics.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,778
    Not necessarily. I'm an artist and I have encountered truly stunning interpretations of profundity in what, from my side, was purely incidental. And personally, I strive to create art that does not need a manual to be "correctly" enjoyed but rather to let the viewer find their own interpretations that reflect only their, not my, "reading" of the work.


  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,224
    Not necessarily unusual, when was the last art work the came with a manual? We don't look for an inspired artist, we look for art that inspires.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    Not necessarily. The artist might just looks for a buyer to make some easy money.

    On the other hand, the buyer might just be looking for a neighbour to show off his newest acquisition.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,224
    Not necessarily so. The artist must be distinguished from the commercial artist and the buyer may already have a neighbour in mind, why buy first and then look for a neighbour?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily. The buyer might simply not have any neighbours and buys expensive art to make the neighbourhood attractive. That way, he may finally have a neighbour after a while, at which point having expensive art suddenly becomes important in order to stay the alpha-neighbour.

    Although in that case he could simply have cleaned the front yard instead of spending a fortune on art.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, because the cost of junk removal, re-seeding or sodding the lawn, mulch and other landscaping requirements would quickly surpass the amount that was presumably spent on "art."

    Of course, the newly planted topiaries could be considered art in their own right.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, they could be regarded as very expensive scarecrows.

    Of course, they probably won't scare any crows.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily! The crows might have gotten so accustomed to the pink lawn flamingo's that they'd be scared by the lack thereof.

    Unless of course, some student pranksters plant 800 pink flamingo's in the front yard overnight. That'd keep the crows.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily! The presence of large numbers of pink flamingoes would tend to indicate an alkaline environment, not amenable to crows.

    Unless the crows have adapted to alkaline environments.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,224
    not necessarily, the pink flamingos are artificial and do not change the pH in fact making perches for adventurous crows or even Rooks in fact the scene could quickly resemble Hitchcock's "Birds" and be scattered with bleeding blondes

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    The above statement does not lend itself to any "not necessarily" argument. There is just no other possible scenario.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, as the aforementioned rooks might be receiving a king's ransom to be pawns of the queen, following her orders as relayed to the bishop the knight before.

    Of course, this plot is something you should probably check, mate!

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    I guess you can always come up with another scenario if you postulate a parallel universe, in which rooks are chess pieces. I assume if you go back to the original universe, the pawns are actually prawns on which the flamingos feed. But not necessarily. I think parallel universes should be bannned from the game.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily! If you ban parallel universes, you acknowledge they exist, which isn't a proven fact. And if everyone would start banning parallel universes, before you know it someone in a different universe would ban ours. And we wouldn't want that, now would we?

    On the other hand, maybe we would want that. If a universe is banned, it's an outlaw. And it must be fun to live a life unburdened by the laws of the universe.

    (and now stick to the format of the game everyone: First part of your reply is the...not necessarily claim. Second part of your reply are second thoughts to the first part.)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, outlaw societies often have their own systems of rules and justice.

    Of course, outlaw universes might be different than outlaw societies.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Coelacanth View Post
    Of course, outlaw universes might be different than outlaw societies.
    Not necessarily, outlaw societies could thrive on psychedelics, thereby creating their own outlaw universes in their own image.

    On the other hand there could be outlaw societies where sufficient amounts of psychedelics aren't available.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    ...Not necessarily! A lack of psychedelics makes people go crazy, achieving identical results.

    Unless of course, you're dealing with a universe that still has beer and TV. That avoids people going crazy but makes them go lazy. So lazy, they couldn't be bothered by making up new laws of the universe. therefore the universe would remain outlawed.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,224
    Oh not necessarily. Having no psychedelics does not make anyone go crazy at least if crazy is defined as what happens with psychedelics. In the set of all lawful and outlawed universes anything is possibly impossible.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,588
    (and now stick to the format of the game everyone: First part of your reply is the...not necessarily claim. Second part of your reply are second thoughts to the first part.)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

Similar Threads

  1. Why would blind cave fish necessarily lose their eyes?
    By Click Ticker in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-14, 10:10 PM
  2. Are particles necessarily three dimensional?
    By Grey in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-03, 02:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •