Well, it's that time of year again (for the first time) the time when we pretend that we've always had a nothing essay competition. Wasn't it great last year when it was a tie between all of earth's inhabitants? Or wasn't it even better the year before when everyone thought we were joking and didn't bother to do anything? This year promises to be no better as we expect a very poor turnout. But wouldn't be great if... some number just shy of everyone got involved?
Here are the rules for this years competition:
Write an essay 500 words or less explaining why you ____ nothing.
Blank entries will be accepted, but keep in mind that there will be several blank entries and you will need to find a way to make your blank entry stand out beyond all others. If your blank entry bears a striking resemblance to all others you will receive 1st place. Remember to tell us that your entry is for the essay contest. Also remember to provide your name and address so that we can send you the prize you probably won't get.
All duplicates or ties will receive 1st place.
Awards:
1st place: All first place winners will receive nothing.
2nd place: The second place winner will receive the nothing users manual, except in the case of a tie in which case all second place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
3rd place: The third place winner will get a tee shirt that says nothing on it, except in the case of a tie in which all third place winners will receive the 1st place prize.
Last place: The last place winner will receive all the prizes left unclaimed by the previous winners except in the rare case that there are no ties which would mean that last place gets nothing at all.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Q&A: How many is a shirt?
On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Josh wrote:
the website makes this a bit unclear, if i pay 20$ for a shirt, do i got 1 of my choice color, or 2, one in each color?
-josh
To which I replied:
Josh,
Thank you for your interest in nothing and tee shirts that promote nothing. When we created this site over 12 years ago, our intention was to make everything clear so that you could see through it to nothing. Now that someone was finally confused about something on our site, we can see that we have failed. If only we could have made nothing clear in the first place so that you would know you had gone too far when you saw anything. But as they say, hindsight is good for nothing. I can understand why you may have been confused about how many shirts you get and what colors they are because we are so focused on nothing that often the details are treated as unimportant. Although we don't apologize for this, we are sorry that we made it clear where you could get answers. Can we meet you halfway on this one and make everything semi-opaque?
The answer to your exciting question is: You get a single shirt in your choice of color (black with black lettering or white with white lettering).
If you have further questions, may I suggest that you ask yourself the question first. If you agree that the question legitimately deserves to be recognized and addressed in this forum, then by all means send it to us. If you think it is silly to ask yourself questions or you find the question to be unintelligible, please do not send it to us.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is our standard screening process, and without meaningless rules, obeying meaningless rules would be meaningless. And don't try and tell me it is already meaningless, ask yourself if it's meaningless, and don't answer yourself with another question, follow the rules.
Xymyl (KON)
the website makes this a bit unclear, if i pay 20$ for a shirt, do i got 1 of my choice color, or 2, one in each color?
-josh
To which I replied:
Josh,
Thank you for your interest in nothing and tee shirts that promote nothing. When we created this site over 12 years ago, our intention was to make everything clear so that you could see through it to nothing. Now that someone was finally confused about something on our site, we can see that we have failed. If only we could have made nothing clear in the first place so that you would know you had gone too far when you saw anything. But as they say, hindsight is good for nothing. I can understand why you may have been confused about how many shirts you get and what colors they are because we are so focused on nothing that often the details are treated as unimportant. Although we don't apologize for this, we are sorry that we made it clear where you could get answers. Can we meet you halfway on this one and make everything semi-opaque?
The answer to your exciting question is: You get a single shirt in your choice of color (black with black lettering or white with white lettering).
If you have further questions, may I suggest that you ask yourself the question first. If you agree that the question legitimately deserves to be recognized and addressed in this forum, then by all means send it to us. If you think it is silly to ask yourself questions or you find the question to be unintelligible, please do not send it to us.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is our standard screening process, and without meaningless rules, obeying meaningless rules would be meaningless. And don't try and tell me it is already meaningless, ask yourself if it's meaningless, and don't answer yourself with another question, follow the rules.
Xymyl (KON)
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"
Thanks,
BASHA>>>>>>>>
To which I replied:
BASHA,
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)
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"
Thanks,
BASHA>>>>>>>>
To which I replied:
BASHA,
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)
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:
Per-Niklas,
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)
Where do you manufacture nothing?
To which I replied:
Per-Niklas,
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:
Andrew,
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 nothing.net, 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)
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:
Andrew,
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 nothing.net, 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:
Actually,
We send nothing, then, several weeks later we send a plain envelope with a small instruction book enclosed.
It explains nothing.
--Xymyl
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:
Actually,
We send nothing, then, several weeks later we send a plain envelope with a small instruction book enclosed.
It explains nothing.
--Xymyl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)