#219: Twitter in the Wild

#219: Twitter in the Wild

Today’s comic is a guest comic by the wonderful Sarah Lesson (I would link to her awesome blog, but sadly it no longer exists – a fact that in no way detracts from its awesomeness).

Today’s comic also serves as a reminder that chaospet.com IS still alive, if only barely. I hereby promise a regular update later this week.

Discussion (18)¬

  1. wm tanksley says:

    A pleasant sign! Good to hear from you.

  2. chaospet says:

    Thanks, Wm! It is good to be posting again, hope all is well!

  3. Canuovea says:

    Never really got Twitter…

    Or Facebook.

    Or MySpace.

    Heck, I’ve basically just got email…

  4. wm tanksley says:

    Canuovea: me too. Makes no sense at all to me.

    Get me a good antisocial network and I’ll spend all day on it.

  5. chaospet says:

    That’s ok, you don’t need any of those things because they’re all stupid now, thanks to Google+!

  6. wm tanksley says:

    I use Google+ all the time because there are no other people on it. Ahh, solitude.

    More seriously, I do like Google+. I like knowing that I can say things that not everyone I know will hear. Y’know, my boss doesn’t need to hear that one joke.

  7. Canuovea says:

    I have heard of Google+ and it actually sounds rather interesting…

    Also, wm tanksley, just hope your boss doesn’t read the comments of this comic! That comment of your’s will make them curious!

  8. wm tanksley says:

    Canuovea, send me the email address you’d like to use as the primary on Google+, and I’ll invite you. Course, if I don’t recognize you in my inbox I might not notice, so mention your screen name here. Obviously, this applies to other readers as well :-).

    wtanksleyjr at gmail

    There are other cool benefits, like the free upgrade to unlimited 1800×1800 private pictures at Picasa — not an awful backup plan, and really easy if your camera happens to be an Android phone.


  9. Canuovea says:

    Thanks wm, but I think I’ll wait and see with Google+ just a bit more. Discretion is the better part of valour and all that rot. I’ve not gotten involved with this social networking stuff yet, and it is going to take a bit more than a new system to bring me over. It is still in a kind of open Beta stage, yes?

    Also, my Gmail is a rather convoluted mess. It uses the name of my dog and the name of some relative from Europe who I’m not actually related to. I think.

  10. Emil says:

    “Today’s comic is a guest comic by the wonderful Sarah Lesson (I would link to her awesome blog, but sadly it no longer exists – a fact that in no way detracts from its awesomeness). ”


    Reminds me of ontological arguments…
    1. God is supreme.
    2. If something does not exist, then it isn’t supreme.
    Thus, 3. If something is supreme, then it exists. [from 2, contra-position]
    Thus, 4. God exists.


  11. Emil says:

    Also, i no hav an awsom image again. 🙂

    and i forgot to add [2x double negation elimination] to step 3.

  12. Canuovea says:

    Isn’t that kinda-sorta Rene Descartes proof for the existence of God? Except replace “supreme” with “perfect” and 2 with “the idea of something can’t come from something less perfect than that idea itself…”

    Ta Da!

  13. wm tanksley says:

    Isn’t that Anselm?

  14. Emil says:

    I didn’t try to rite any specific ontological argument. They ar all horrible anyway. In taking a filosofy corse, one class shud be: For each of the major ontological arguments, explain wy it fails.

  15. wm tanksley says:

    I wouldn’t call them horrible… Rather, I’d say that they work only to classify what God would be if He exists.
    But you’re right, yours wasn’t Anselm’s.
    Why is your spelling peculiar? I can see there’s some kind of phonemic regularization going on…

  16. wm tanksley says:

    I wasn’t clear — when I said “they work only” I truly meant that they are limited to that one function; they cannot serve, for example, to actually prove existence.

  17. Emil says:

    They work only to confuse people into continuing to believ, almost, anyway. Wasn’t Russell once convinced by the ontological argument? At least for a wile.

    Yes, it’s moderate Cut Spelling. http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/cutspelhb.php

  18. MC/Curtis says:

    Great comic. I also dislike social networking. Can’t we all just get a website?

chaospet is powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Subscribe: RSS Feed