Lonelistic Physics: Why there are no plot holes.

Ziola · Post by **Ziola** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:10 pm

That's not going to require me to make copies or anything, is it?

Cloud_ax · Post by **Cloud_ax** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:14 pm

this all confuses me. when i talk to the media im just going to read from a written statement from the doctors, right?

tricky-ticky-tavi · Post by **tricky-ticky-tavi** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:17 pm

As for my research, I have decided to study the content of the aforementioned "filler" videos. Can "filler" videos exist in a plot-less vacuum? In order for them to be "filler" it seems there would have to be another kind of video, isolated as the "non-filler, substantive" video. Do the existence of either of these typifications of video prove the existence or absence of plot? I will post my findings as soon as they are available.

giddeanx · Post by **giddeanx** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:02 pm

tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:As for my research, I have decided to study the content of the aforementioned "filler" videos. Can "filler" videos exist in a plot-less vacuum? In order for them to be "filler" it seems there would have to be another kind of video, isolated as the "non-filler, substantive" video. Do the existence of either of these typifications of video prove the existence or absence of plot? I will post my findings as soon as they are available.

I think there is so little if any plot that the videos with plot also have filler in them completely obscureing wether there was plot in it at all.

tricky-ticky-tavi · Post by **tricky-ticky-tavi** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:17 pm

giddeanx wrote:
tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:As for my research, I have decided to study the content of the aforementioned "filler" videos. Can "filler" videos exist in a plot-less vacuum? In order for them to be "filler" it seems there would have to be another kind of video, isolated as the "non-filler, substantive" video. Do the existence of either of these typifications of video prove the existence or absence of plot? I will post my findings as soon as they are available.
I think there is so little if any plot that the videos with plot also have filler in them completely obscureing wether there was plot in it at all.

A good point, but i feel that we can't keep discussing "filler" videos without some quantitative and qualitative asessment of what "filler" actually is. Is "filler" the standard for all videos or are filler videos just videos w/ the absence of plot. I think this research would go far in proving/disproving the existence of plot. You can't judge the brightness of a light w/o comparing it to the absence of light (darkness).

ghost_of_kenny · Post by **ghost_of_kenny** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:32 pm

tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:
giddeanx wrote:
tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:As for my research, I have decided to study the content of the aforementioned "filler" videos. Can "filler" videos exist in a plot-less vacuum? In order for them to be "filler" it seems there would have to be another kind of video, isolated as the "non-filler, substantive" video. Do the existence of either of these typifications of video prove the existence or absence of plot? I will post my findings as soon as they are available.
I think there is so little if any plot that the videos with plot also have filler in them completely obscureing wether there was plot in it at all.
A good point, but i feel that we can't keep discussing "filler" videos without some quantitative and qualitative asessment of what "filler" actually is. Is "filler" the standard for all videos or are filler videos just videos w/ the absence of plot. I think this research would go far in proving/disproving the existence of plot. You can't judge the brightness of a light w/o comparing it to the absence of light (darkness).

Good work, when can I expect this report on my desk?

tricky-ticky-tavi · Post by **tricky-ticky-tavi** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:55 pm

ghost_of_kenny wrote: Good work, when can I expect this report on my desk?

Sir,
The time frame for the study will be rather lengthy because of the number of variables it involves. I will have a preliminary report available next week, but of course, the complete findings may take several weeks.

Respectfully,
Dr. TTT

Skunkwaffle · Post by **Skunkwaffle** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:06 pm

tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:
giddeanx wrote:
tricky-ticky-tavi wrote:As for my research, I have decided to study the content of the aforementioned "filler" videos. Can "filler" videos exist in a plot-less vacuum? In order for them to be "filler" it seems there would have to be another kind of video, isolated as the "non-filler, substantive" video. Do the existence of either of these typifications of video prove the existence or absence of plot? I will post my findings as soon as they are available.
I think there is so little if any plot that the videos with plot also have filler in them completely obscureing wether there was plot in it at all.
A good point, but i feel that we can't keep discussing "filler" videos without some quantitative and qualitative asessment of what "filler" actually is. Is "filler" the standard for all videos or are filler videos just videos w/ the absence of plot. I think this research would go far in proving/disproving the existence of plot. You can't judge the brightness of a light w/o comparing it to the absence of light (darkness).

I think you might be referring to "virtual" videos. Unlike regular videos, we can never know exactly where the plot a "virtual" video is going. In fact, if memory serves, the only time a virtual video can be said to have plot is when it is not being observed. Therefore these virtual/filler videos are merely an abstraction due to our own limited understanding of ploticle physics. Once we have a clearer understanding of the plot, and the science behind it, we probably won't need the concept of "virtual" videos anymore.

ghost_of_kenny · Post by **ghost_of_kenny** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:41 am

Here is our Press Release:

http://www.lonelygirl15.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11887

marlasinger · Post by **marlasinger** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:57 am

HAH! awesome. awesomesauce.

Onewen · Post by **Onewen** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:19 pm

OMG...i just watched the press release and read this whole thread...now i am hot for ALL you brainiacs!

Ziola · Post by **Ziola** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:33 pm

*playing with gum*

Like, if you could totally tell me which brainiac you want first, I could maybe try and set up some sort of appointment thingy if you want.

Or not. Whatever.

*blows bubble*

Does this headset mess my hair up too bad?

Onewen · Post by **Onewen** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:43 pm

maybe i could be the official groupie???

I promise to make "stalker" posts and write fan mail...what do you think??? LOL

NAXAN · Post by **NAXAN** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:44 pm

It would seem to me that we should be able to 'quantify' "filler" videos based on the Elendi-Waffle scale of c/sF...But, perhaps the "filler" videos may also act as gluons to attract any possile ploticles, making them indespensable in creating a plot hole.

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:46 pm

Onewen wrote:maybe i could be the official groupie???

I promise to make "stalker" posts and write fan mail...what do you think??? LOL

I think there should be a fan club

Count me in