That’s funny, considering you were the one “With out side in sight with in.” I was expecting you to respond to the creative challenge of “po: syntactically right, semantically wrong”.
Maybe I’m misusing it. Am I correct in my recollection the “po” indicated that the following is supposed to be a juxtaposition of disparate thoughts so as to spark creativity by attempting to create a relationship between them? Seems like you so that (sans po) all the time. : )
Egana’s comment suggests that it did eventually have the intended effect, even if there’s no comment to document the content of said “explosion of insight”.
I thought of “Po” as a perfect foil to the titular bloodbath. Not only was it strikingly brief, but I expected it to generate more content than the ceremonial frenzy I witnessed elsewhere.
My first comment has only slight variations on meaning (I wasn’t *that* creative) but was inspired by the Art of Noise title “In No Sense Nonsense”. It’s mostly just a play on words.
Of course, my chosen object could be considered a puzzle of it’s own. If you don’t see at least two orthogonal paradigms, you might want to let the words steep for a while. And consider the source. : )
:| 
With out side in sight with in.
LikeLike
Presented for ease of digestion…
LikeLike
Diametrically opposed paradigms…
LikeLike
Or orthogonal?
LikeLike
And of which paradigms do you speak?
LikeLike
My first comment should apply to at least one person, but that person hasn’t responded to the challenge. Disappointing.
LikeLike
Sorry, MN. I really didn’t get this post or comment thread at all. I thought it was some inside joke that I was on the outside of.
I remember Po, but I wasn’t sure where it was all going!
LikeLike
“PO” is funny…
whenever Gorf stops in mid sentance, sticks the tip of his tongue out and gets a thoughtful look, i know another explosion of insight is on its way…
“Po” is the perfect indicator word for this…
*grin*
LikeLike
That’s funny, considering you were the one “With out side in sight with in.” I was expecting you to respond to the creative challenge of “po: syntactically right, semantically wrong”.
Maybe I’m misusing it. Am I correct in my recollection the “po” indicated that the following is supposed to be a juxtaposition of disparate thoughts so as to spark creativity by attempting to create a relationship between them? Seems like you so that (sans po) all the time. : )
Egana’s comment suggests that it did eventually have the intended effect, even if there’s no comment to document the content of said “explosion of insight”.
I thought of “Po” as a perfect foil to the titular bloodbath. Not only was it strikingly brief, but I expected it to generate more content than the ceremonial frenzy I witnessed elsewhere.
My first comment has only slight variations on meaning (I wasn’t *that* creative) but was inspired by the Art of Noise title “In No Sense Nonsense”. It’s mostly just a play on words.
LikeLike
Oh…. I get it now.
Yes, you’re using it right. I wasn’t remembering its actual application.
Now I have to think about this. . . .
LikeLike
Of course, my chosen object could be considered a puzzle of it’s own. If you don’t see at least two orthogonal paradigms, you might want to let the words steep for a while. And consider the source. : )
LikeLike
Hm, now that I reread your most recent comment, I see that I may have been a bit overly pedantic. Heh, as though the previous posts weren’t!
I’m happy to offer hints, but I don’t want to present them unbidden, lest I lessen your fun. Of course, there may be no fun to lessen. : )
LikeLike