Monday, December 31, 2007

Top level communication: Nothing Creative

On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:26 AM, BASHA ONE wrote:

I was forwarded your site from a person who bought one of my NOTHING graffiti art canvases. I like your site and I am especially glad to see nothing. I love nothing and have been painting nothing for a while now. Check me at ebay under "BASHA ART"


To which I replied:


Thank you for your e-mail regarding nothing interesting. I must mirror your sentiments about nothing and add that I enjoy nothing more than you do. I know this may come as a shock to someone who has painted nothing for so many years, but I have literally only made 3 paintings in the last 8 years. Absolutely all of the remaining time was dedicated to painting nothing. Once you develop that type of will power and strength of vision, you too will understand what it is to paint nothing interesting, nothing unique, nothing original or even nothing important every time you don't paint. With just a little more (or less) effort maybe even while you are painting you'll draw a blank, then perhaps a vortex, then maybe a black hole...

If you thought I was going somewhere with all this you still have a lot to learn about nothing. I looked at your work, and well I must say it seemed a bit agnomenistic (yes, it's a made up word, but you know what I mean) I could tell you really cared about nothing, and by nothing I mean not just the word nothing, but the real meaning of that word as well.

Perhaps we will collaborate one day by not doing anything to all the dead space in all the galleries in the world. It will be the largest installation ever constructed, what will be even more amazing is that it will require no effort. Are you with me? I'm on board, If you say yes then we've already done it. Of course, even if you don't say yes, we've pretty much already done it.

Here's to nothing collaborative!

--Xymyl (KON)

Monday, December 17, 2007

Fanmail: Nothing remains the same

On Dec 13, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Nishant John wrote:

Change is constant, but nothing will be the same.

To which I replied:

Dear nothing unthusiast,

I appreciate your comments, however, I am expected to refute direct claims made regarding nothing. In this recent note you have given me (at most) very little to work with.

I must point out however, that it could also be said that nothing is constant because there will always be change. I personally don't like to use nothing in this thingesque way but it does have its occasional advantages.

Actually, we appreciated your wording, because you used a single sentence tying the "change" and "nothing" together, then used "but" to show that the one and nothing weren't necessarily two things that were related but could very likely be one thing and nothing with no further relationship beyond the sentence containing them. Very nice indeed!

May we uncourage you to continue to develop your appreciation for nothing specific.

--Xymyl (KON)

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Q&A Archive: Where is nothing made?

On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Per-Niklas Longberg wrote:

Where do you manufacture nothing?

To which I replied:


When we received your question we thought it was a very good question that required detailed lab work to determine the best answer. After more than 20 days in our lab, we were certain that the research team would have a great answer for us. We were somewhat disappointed at the results. The research clearly shows that your question was not a very good question after all.

Nothing is a naturally occurring limited infinite resource. What I mean by this is that we don't need to manufacture nothing because "it" "is" in ready "supply" due to the fact that "it" "is" limited to an infinite state of "being" due mostly to "it's" lack of properties, and partly due to the fact that nothing exists independently of anything. And we mean that in both ways.

So to get straight to the point, we manufacture nothing everywhere, because we don't. I hope this clears things (as they may or may not relate to nothing, which they don't) up.

--Xymyl (KON)

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Fanmail: A conversation about nothing

On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Hello, XYMYL. I am completely shocked to have discovered a website related, in every way possible, to a theory that my friend and I developed in our Physics class out of sheer boredom, and have developing for the past month. I would like to hear back from you regarding nothing, and have an (if at all possible) discussion about nothing.

To which I replied:

Hi Andrew,

A conversation about nothing? There is nothing I would enjoy more. I have been very busy lately though, as busy as nothing you have ever seen. But I still make time for nothing, just as I always have.

I'm assuming that this theory of yours is actually the absence of a theory, or the theory that such a theory wouldn't exist. Am I close on that one? I would have a conversation regarding this impossibility or others. Of course, the less said, the better.

Thanks for your interest in nothing.

--Xymyl (KON)

To which On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Well, as far as our theory, it's not so much the object of laziness, but an object itself. Nothing is an element. Atomic number 0. It is nowhere on the periodic table of elements, of course, because nothing is not tangible. But nothing is. Nothing is everywhere. Everything is nowhere. If you think about it, nothing makes sense.

To which I replied:


I'm certainly happy to see that you've proved one of my theories false thru your response. My theory was, of course, that you can't learn nothing in school.

I have to say though, that assigning an atomic number to nothing (even if that number is zero, if that is what you propose) could generate even greater confusion. I'll give an example, not only is nothing not an atom, "it" "is" also not light, gravity, or a thing made up of atoms such as a refrigerator. Should we be expected to make a new listing within every category just to point out that there is nothing missing? Indeed, should every refrigerator manufacturer be required to create a ZERO model that doesn't exist? And what about Sub Zero? People might think the products they sell are inverted refrigerators. They may have to re-brand and could (in the process) lose their proverbial shirts, thus having zero shirts.

I think that the fact that nothing isn't in the periodic table or the "chart" as we like to call it, is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Imagine a world where science was so accepting of nothing as a thing. Sucks right? In case you are not convinced, look at our modern dark age of communication. Nothing being categorized as a pronoun or even as a noun is commonplace, and yet, "it" "is" neither. This is the linguistic equivalent of what you propose with nothing being added to the chart.

Imagine a world where science ebbed and flowed with the whims of the masses, as does language. Now imagine nothing. One totally different thing and no thing at all, right?

True science will often use the testable to "scratch the surface" of the intangible, but it will never test the intangible. For example, a vacuum such as the void of space can be interacted with because there are properties to it. Although it may contain nothing in a general sense, it isn't nothing. True nothingness, would never be testable due to the total lack of properties, and the fact that a testing device would introduce something into what once wasn't. Of course, here at, we embrace nothing in all "its" forms, but especially in the lack of form.

To conclude... Nothing as a placeholder is. Nothing infinite isn't. Nothing as a joke is. Nothing serious isn't. Nothing real "is" because "it" isn't.

Thank you for your continued interest in nothing scientific.

--Xymyl (KON)

To Which On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

If a refrigerator company manufactured a refrigerator brand 'zero', it'd have to exist. But by creating a brand 'zero', the company has created a meaning for 'zero'. As false meaning. 'Zero' does not mean 'refrigerator'. 'Zero' means 'Nothing'. The absence of something. Nothing can define Zero. Nothing is indefinite. But, I suppose that outside the reaches of the result of the big bang, is Nothing in its purist form. The element Nothing I'm referring to. It is void of all that is and isn't tangible. The universal absence.

To which I replied:

Hello again Andrew,

Obviously, the brand 'zero' refrigerator would have to exist if it was manufactured. However, a zero model could exist without the corresponding refrigerator having been manufactured. A zero model that does not exist would be analogous to what you proposed regarding the element nothing. I said it wasn't such a hot idea. You seemed to think it was a great idea.

I appreciate that you point out that "zero" does not mean "refrigerator". I would like to add my corresponding claim that zero does not always equal nothing. I must also point out that nothing does not always mean the absence of something.

Zero is functional, zero is an integral part of a modern ten based numerical system. Zero is also highly useful as an intermediate point between positive and negative numbers. Zero can point to a lack or diminishment. And yes, as you rightly point out, zero can even mean nothing.

Although nothing CAN be used in functional in ways similar to zero, nothing is most widely used as no thing. This is not simply an absence of something, but nothing at all, making "it" independent of everything. Since you make a "big bang" reference, I'm assuming that you appreciate the idea of a time when everything was not in existence. I'd like to think that such a time existed, but sadly, a universe without anything would not be possible. And since nothing in the purest "form" would be featureless, "it" could never act or even react. This means that nothing would ever exist. So, clearly that dream could never be reality, and if it could, no one would be around to know.

So, although we may use the word nothing for all of its purposes, we always hold in highest regard, true nothing. Unbounded, unfettered, unfiltered, un-acted upon by anything, and unable to interact with anything. Incapable of propagating a universe or a grain of sand, or even a subatomic particle. I hope this helps you to see even more clearly why nothing amazes me.

Just as zero is the universal placeholder, nothing fills the void in our universe and beyond.

--Xymyl (KON)

Monday, December 10, 2007

Q&A Archive: Personalized nothing?

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Brienne DeJong wrote:

Stupid question, but my kinda adopted little sis wants to know... If I send you $5 and my friends adress, will you send her an empty box, or nothing at all? If it's an empty box, can I send a personal message with it?

Thanks, Brienne

To which I replied:


We send nothing, then, several weeks later we send a plain envelope with a small instruction book enclosed.

It explains nothing.


Sunday, December 9, 2007

Fanmail Archive: Got nothing.

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 BEIL99 wrote:

I'm really pissed. I order nothing and I got nothing in return. This is the last time I will order nothing from you!! I may even take this nothing order up with the consumer affairs divsion of my local internet provider,who has nothing to say about nothing. From now on I will look forward to getting nothing from you and you will get nothing from me!! , Thanks for nothing

Dear Cunsumer,

To order nothing may mean not to order, or it may mean to pay money and get nothing in return. Since we've never received an order from you I'd have to assume it's the former.

Your interest in our lack of product brings us great pleasure. We are glad that nothing is such an important part of your life as to motivate you write such a spirited letter to us. I do hope, however, you send *actual* money (in the form of a check or money order) towards the purchase of nothing (remember, you not only get nothing but you'll get our instruction book free with every purchase).

Before you order, let me remind you. You get what you pay for.

Thank you.

Xymyl (KON)

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Q&A Archive: Email nothing?

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 Ellimist45 wrote:

> can you send me back an e-mail with nothing in it? please, and thanks

To which I responded:


Friday, December 7, 2007

Fanmail Archive: Peoples Game Player?

On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, ho goht wrote:

hi, i'm not a prankster who doesn't have anything better to do than do anything, i'm just Mr nothing on a everything world queer coincidence, i happened to click on your web link from webcrawler search cos i searched for why am i saying all these..could it be for something,,,i guess not cos i just have this to say to you.....YOU MUST BE A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER .......i said something but now it's ( ).

To which I responded:

I'm not sure what "A GOOD PEOPLE 'S GAME PLAYER" is but it seems too extreme for someone like me. I like to just sit back and do nothing.

Xymyl (KON)

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Q&A Archive: Nothing Y2K Compliant?

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Don wrote:

Hi. I was impressed with nothing at your site. You have, by far, exceeded my expectations with respect to nothing and I felt compelled to comment on nothing at all.

I have been using nothing for years, and until recently, nothing was acceptable. But, I have a question; Is nothing Y2K compliant? Can I get a certified letter stating that nothing is Y2K? On Jan 1, 2000, will nothing function? I depend on nothing for almost everything. My wife thinks about nothing all day. My kids play with nothing, and I make my living getting better and better at nothing each day. (No I don't work for the government - I'm not that good at doing nothing).
I need more. Where can I get next to nothing?

To which I replied:


I'm glad you were impressed by nothing. Some may say that one who is impressed by nothing is easily impressed. If you know nothing like I do, you understand how difficult it can be to get all worked up over "it".

So, someone who is impressed by nothing is hardly impressed. (That is as opposed to easily (however not opposed as in opposite, just different.)

I'm glad to hear you and your family have been enjoying our products. (I use the term products in the sense far beyond the loosest possible sense, and by such statement mean lack thereof.) Nonetheless I enjoy hearing positive feedback about nothing (it's really difficult to come by these days).

Now on to your Y2K problem.

If you mean nothing at all...

I can not guarantee that nothing will work on (or after) January 1, 2000. In fact, it is my painful obligation to inform you that some things will be working that day. I could go into exhaustive detail... but... actually I don't have the time (so I can't).

If you mean nothing in general...

Yes, you have my guarantee that nothing will function on into eternity. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing will function perfectly, forever. Nothing will have nothing to do with the Y2K problems that will pop up shortly. In fact, on effected systems mission critical data may be lost, systems may fail, programs may halt or have fatal errors.

What does this mean? Nothing. No more errors, blue screens, lockups, shutdowns, disconnects, routeflaps, collisions, fragments, truncations... I could go on and on... but... actually...

Yes, January 1, 2000 is install nothing day! It's not a Y2K problem it's NO/OS extravaganza! A black hole blowout! I could go on and on...

If I only had the time.

Anyway, no, you can't get a certified letter nothing will work because it could be taken to mean that everything will stop.

All I'm saying is something will go wrong ... but never nothing.

Xymyl (KON)

P.S. I take exception to your statement about government workers being good at doing nothing. Yes, there are some government workers who seem to be doing nothing, but how did they get there? That's right, they had to walk to the bus.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Q&A Archive: Expensive Shirts?

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Killboy Powerhead wrote:

> why are your tshirts so fu**ing expensive?

To which I replied:

Because we waste so much time answering e-mail.


Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Hatemail Archive: You can't do nothing...

On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Jonathan Davis wrote:

i hate to be the one to tell you, but you can't do nothing without dying. if you truly want to do nothing don't breath,suffucate, eat, starve, sleep, stay awake, die, or live.

dumb ass.

To which I replied:


I hate to be the one to tell you this but...

You state, "you can't do nothing without dying" which is a double negative. That could mean either you can do anything without dying, you can do anything while alive, you must do something without dying, you must do something instead of dying, or you can do nothing with dying.

Let's examine these briefly:

1) you can do anything without dying

This statement is incorrect. I could jump off a tall building, tie dynamite to my head and ignite it, get hit by a bus etc...

2) you can do anything while alive

This is also a false statement. I can't go to the sun, or be completely eaten by maggots while alive (I could go on and on).

3) you must do something without dying

This is a lie. Whoever told you this should be shot while skiing. I've heard of people who died while flying or falling. In fact, it seems that you must be doing something if you are going to die.

4) you must do something instead of dying

This also is a total falsehood. I could choose to die, to live and die later on, or even to die while drinking my favorite wine.

5) you can do nothing with dying

This also is not entirely correct. Although you can do nothing while dying, you generally end up doing more than ever before. Many a mans last days are far busier than his earlier days. With trips to the hospital, calling 911, often speaking to the police, getting limbs amputated, I could go on and on... I think you get the idea.

I'm sure there are many more meanings for this sentence. You can be sure whatever they are, they will all prove you wrong (and probably stupid).

Xymyl (KON)

Monday, December 3, 2007

Hatemail Archive: Stupid!

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 wrote:

> YOU People are veary stupd

To which I quipped:

That may be but we can spell.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Q&A Archive: For real?

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, RON & WILMA OLSON wrote:

> Are you really for REAL?

To which I replied:

No, not really. Wait I take that back... it only costs five dollars U.S.
to find out.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Q&A Archive: Good question!

On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, kathi ricci wrote:

To which I replied:

Good question.

The answer is as follows: