While nickel-slick on its surface, this theory loses considerable luster when one realizes that its fly has been left open regarding inflhation: that is, the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-Shawty???s-pinhead abstraction/devaluation resulting from a given hater???s potential to be claimed by a virtually infinite number of hatees. Say, for example, that I hate both Terry Clizzo and Jonny Paychecks for their respective luxuriouness of hair, and that I hate each with a hate that--while differently located relative to each party (???Terrence/Paychump thinks he???s a boss, but that dude really needs to put on a hat/something with a collar.???)--is essentially equal. Could I not then be claimed by each as his very own hater? And if so, couldn???t I then also be claimed by the endlessly spooling list of folks for whom I pour out a little bile each and every day? Unless I???m missing something, this ???ownership??? you???re talking about passes out of the exclusiveness inherent in the very word and dilutes into meaninglessness pretty quickly. Your haters are my haters are his haters are her haters are their haters are all of our damn haters. Where does it end?
Also, a couple years back, Jessica Hopper was writing (in actual print, on actual paper) about some spat between Mayor Daley and some aldermans???n???nem and claimed that Da Mare was getting--and I quote--???swagger jacked.??? Since then, I have a real hard time taking the concept of swagger seriously.
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
However, I will argue that the game done change. What we are dealing with now is the spooky behavior of quantum-level hateration, in which the full brunt of one hater's snaps can exist in multiple Hater Spaces at the same time. It all depends on whether or not the baller/hatee is observing the hater's behavior - if he checks, he will find the hater is there, operating at full value! If he doesn't check, he will never know. If he never knows, then he is not letting the hater do his goddamn job. I call this theory Schroedinger's Katt.
Woah woah....but what if your a/the People's Champ? Do you then have hatters? Should you have hatters? If you don't have hatters are you not shit or does that simply mean:
People's Champ, in relation to self-worth > splashing-out and the amount of hatters one gets from said splashing out.
James:
In your query about hatting on John's and Uppington's "delicious locks" and your folicle follies a can we simply check the box: THE HAT THAT HATT MADE?
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
However, I will argue that the game done change. What we are dealing with now is the spooky behavior of quantum-level hateration, in which the full brunt of one hater's snaps can exist in multiple Hater Spaces at the same time. It all depends on whether or not the baller/hatee is observing the hater's behavior - if he checks, he will find the hater is there, operating at full value! If he doesn't check, he will never know. If he never knows, then he is not letting the hater do his goddamn job. I call this theory Schroedinger's Katt.
READ:
If a hatteur hates in the club and the hattee doesn't hear/see/check did the hatteur ever hatt at all?
What we are dealing with now is the spooky behavior of quantum-level hateration, in which the full brunt of one hater's snaps can exist in multiple Hater Spaces at the same time.
True. People need to understand that hate--like love--is not a pie: the giving of the part doesn't necessarily diminish the whole. Nevertheless, I maintain that ownership is rooted in exclusivity, and exclusivity is rooted in finite amounts, and that this bottomless, quantum-level hateration you're talking about, ceaselessly "operating at full value," is essentially infinite, and thus precludes the possibility of any meaningful ownership.
"Schroedinger's Katt," however, is fucking genius.
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
In hopes of potentially resolving these issues without having to posit unlikely quantum events, I submit for your approval this HaterAid:
As you can see, ones own HateIndex emerges from the value of all of their haters after dividing that haters HateIndex by the number of hatees that specific hater hates.
A formula for discovering any hatee (u) HateIndex is as follows: The HateIndex value for hatee u is dependent on the HateIndex values for each hater v out of the set B subscript u (this set contains all haters of hatee u), divided by the number H(v) of hatees from hater v.
All in all, I believe this approach may lead to more accurate assessments of the value of hater ownership, allowing the hated to knowledgeably diversify their hater assets and holdings.
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
In hopes of potentially resolving these issues without having to posit unlikely quantum events, I submit for your approval this HaterAid:
As you can see, ones own HateIndex emerges from the value of all of their haters after dividing that haters HateIndex by the number of hatees that specific hater hates.
A formula for discovering any hatee (u) HateIndex is as follows: The HateIndex value for hatee u is dependent on the HateIndex values for each hater v out of the set B subscript u (this set contains all haters of hatee u), divided by the number H(v) of hatees from hater v.
All in all, I believe this approach may lead to more accurate assessments of the value of hater ownership, allowing the hated to knowledgeably diversify their hater assets and holdings.
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
In hopes of potentially resolving these issues without having to posit unlikely quantum events, I submit for your approval this HaterAid:
As you can see, ones own HateIndex emerges from the value of all of their haters after dividing that haters HateIndex by the number of hatees that specific hater hates.
A formula for discovering any hatee (u) HateIndex is as follows: The HateIndex value for hatee u is dependent on the HateIndex values for each hater v out of the set B subscript u (this set contains all haters of hatee u), divided by the number H(v) of hatees from hater v.
All in all, I believe this approach may lead to more accurate assessments of the value of hater ownership, allowing the hated to knowledgeably diversify their hater assets and holdings.
This is extremely helpful.
Related: could somebody please repost that pie-chart breaking down the distribution of dudes we have here on SoulStrut by size, from "big" to "microscopic"?
Comments
Also, a couple years back, Jessica Hopper was writing (in actual print, on actual paper) about some spat between Mayor Daley and some aldermans???n???nem and claimed that Da Mare was getting--and I quote--???swagger jacked.??? Since then, I have a real hard time taking the concept of swagger seriously.
James you make a good point concerning the thinning worth of the hater who is dispersing the zingery and cattishness far and wide throughout the world of ballers, with no particular allegiance to any one baller.
However, I will argue that the game done change. What we are dealing with now is the spooky behavior of quantum-level hateration, in which the full brunt of one hater's snaps can exist in multiple Hater Spaces at the same time. It all depends on whether or not the baller/hatee is observing the hater's behavior - if he checks, he will find the hater is there, operating at full value! If he doesn't check, he will never know. If he never knows, then he is not letting the hater do his goddamn job. I call this theory Schroedinger's Katt.
People's Champ, in relation to self-worth > splashing-out and the amount of hatters one gets from said splashing out.
James:
In your query about hatting on John's and Uppington's "delicious locks" and your folicle follies a can we simply check the box: THE HAT THAT HATT MADE?
READ:
If a hatteur hates in the club and the hattee doesn't hear/see/check did the hatteur ever hatt at all?
I'm basking in the hate.
True. People need to understand that hate--like love--is not a pie: the giving of the part doesn't necessarily diminish the whole. Nevertheless, I maintain that ownership is rooted in exclusivity, and exclusivity is rooted in finite amounts, and that this bottomless, quantum-level hateration you're talking about, ceaselessly "operating at full value," is essentially infinite, and thus precludes the possibility of any meaningful ownership.
"Schroedinger's Katt," however, is fucking genius.
As you can see, ones own HateIndex emerges from the value of all of their haters after dividing that haters HateIndex by the number of hatees that specific hater hates.
A formula for discovering any hatee (u) HateIndex is as follows:
The HateIndex value for hatee u is dependent on the HateIndex values for each hater v out of the set B subscript u (this set contains all haters of hatee u), divided by the number H(v) of hatees from hater v.
All in all, I believe this approach may lead to more accurate assessments of the value of hater ownership, allowing the hated to knowledgeably diversify their hater assets and holdings.
do your goddamn job.
This is extremely helpful.
Related: could somebody please repost that pie-chart breaking down the distribution of dudes we have here on SoulStrut by size, from "big" to "microscopic"?
Thanks
Am I crazy? Or does the lil fella look a lil like...Day?