Talk:'maters


 * The future of bun. Q: is merely one nonsensical entity that lacks semantic content an advance over the multiplicity of (meaningful) 'maters, or does it represent a decline? I suppose there is much to remain silent about here.

I think that where x=amount of information about 'maters, and where T(x)= percentage chance that useful information can be derived from knowing...well, anything about 'maters -- what they were, what they are, and how they can be used -- we have the equation lim (x-->inf) T(x) < 1. In fact, I suspect that the limit is less than 0.25, meaning that 'maters don't make sense even in the best of circumstances.

It reminds me of the Harvard Lampoon's movie awards that were (and possibly still are) given out yearly. I read an article by an author who wrote, "This is not a complete summary of the awards given by the Harvard Lampoon. Do we really need to add two pages of awards which are variations about a joke about an annoying dog in a movie that was released in 1947?"

'maters are only provided as signposts for unwary future fans, who might run across a work featuring in-jokes to 'maters and conclude that the author had an unhealthy vegetable fixation. This is why in-jokes might provide a vocabulary for Olde Fans to share, but are self-defeating in the end. CINCGREEN 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)