Conversation on hash tags?

This is pollution of a #HashTurd & #hashturds .  If you are going to make conversations on other’s definitions then there is no need for them. If they only exist in conversations (your other option) why use them at all? 
Here is one embedded one #cuntification   – basically related to this story.


null We should stay on the topic of a #hashtag …
even more focused than any other thought.


it seems to me that conversation on a #HashTag, when focused either on the sign, or what to what it refers, can be  quite focused and useful.  When somebody uses that hashtag, they can consult the dialog about it and therefore understand its meaning.

None of your reasons above work over here.  it must be that they contain assumptions that i do not share.  Could you please explain the assumptions that make those reasons seem logical to you??

We do have lookups by names & phrases – this has munged into a free-for all on hashturds. 
Let me show you the next time you define a #hashturd & I will take it off topic.

well after due consideration, i agree … my comments on #ChuckyCheese were not about that sign … and so i moved them to their more appropriate thought … thanks for noticing.

but i disagree that,  “If you are going to make conversations on other’s definitions then there is no need for them.” … rather as long as the dialog  is focused on the topic to which the sign refers, it is almost the best place for it ... because then when somebody uses that sign, that thinking is instantly available … even with illustrations.

don’t bother … taking a thought that is intended to be focused off or a topic is always just static.

When a #hashTurd is cut out there is an option to define it & an option about conversations using it.  I’ll check it out with my new one #SuborningInsurrection . So far it is undefined but a option upon mouse over says click for conversation room. Why is that not enough? Why pollute on the definition?

There is no such thing as a fixed definition of a sign … rather everything that is said with that sign forms the definition of it and establishes its context of use.  But sure, one can pollute the definition if one throws static at it out of that context.  

I think you brought up a good point … commentary on a  #hashtag should always be tightly focused. 

i resent you using #hashtrud instead of #hashtag  … please call out a thing with a reasonable sign which does not prejudge against its very meaning.

there are signs & there are signs – they are perhaps all parts of  #memery  & #memification 

You saying “i don’t care”  here, #FoxAndFriends (comment 79929),  might be an example of saying something off the topic of the  #hashtag. 

What you care about #FoxAndFriends or even what you care about my awareness of the program is not about the TV program itself, but rather just about you.  Hence it is off topic.

You are off topic, in my mind, continually talking about the program . null I’m giving you feedback – maybe one of your other followers here are liking it .

huh?  me being off the topic in your mind, suddenly becomes about the topic itself … i don’t think so.
or is it that you simply do not like the topic i brought up.  Fine then, talk against the topic i brought up, but not about me … which is a change in topic.  You always seem to try to kill the messenger, rather than the message.   By doing so,  you are making a  classical #fallacy of thought.

Nobody has yet to like my tweet … but that is off the topic of “Conversations on hashtags”. 

I think focusing and staying on topic is quite a discipline which does help build confidence in one’s thinking. 
all joking aside, focus is not a discipline to deride.

rather it is the force which makes reason work

FYI – #huh

Do you really think your diagram does anything for anyone outside of you?


i know it says something very specific that i have not heard said about the topic. 
It is a true mathematical formula, just like the three laws which it relates.
I think it should be the first thing taught in a introductory class on logic.
It accurately specifies a limitation on the application of binary logic. 

i actually use it frequently to know why a proposition seems true to one but false to another.

#identity 3 laws #logic

Write it in English my logic and abstract algebra says it is not so.  It depends upon the Universe or Multiverse in which your formulae apply & #WTF the thingy A is.

The formula says logic applies only when you know exactly what you are thinking about.

Whatever – that may or may not apply to you but your diagram only applies to you – didn’t get out anywhere else. Get any feedback yet?

the situation holds for me and everybody’s use of binary logic.  the diagram exactly represents the situation. 

I have no pertinant positive or negative feedback from anyone.  #PatHayes, a professor of logic, just said it was about “applying logic” and so he seemed disinterested.   Incidentally i am unsure whether the copula should be “implies” or “entails” … but that is a very fine point.   I have yet to hear somebody actually understand it and give me either negative or positive feedback.   I do not think that lack of uninformed feedback bears on the truth of the formula. 

#btw,  can you site an example where that situation does not hold?

The infinite & unknown & skew-wise commentary , always with insufficient information  LL II,32 – means to me that your diagram is worthless for real situations, even if it made sense in plain English, perhaps useful only for programming robots & neural networks.

yet in “real world situations” people do use binary logic .. and sometimes very effectively.  They do so if, and only if, they know precisely what they are thinking about … or in other words every “A” in their thinking, represents the identical thing that every other “A” represents in that same context. 

a rarity indeed knowing precisely what one is thinking about …. #TeeHee  in these days. null #guffaw

fair enough null … so people should avoid using binary logic except in the rare cases.