( ( this . ( name ( timestamp ( owner . null ))) )
  ( name . |reasonable\ ways\ to\ fuck\ up\ making\ a\ waffle| )
  ( timestamp . 1705987459 )
  ( owner . ( ad `( libbbbyyy\! lib )))
  ( content . '( i like to put a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------78
somewhere ( please relax, this-dot has been instructed not to evaluate whatev-
er is in this register. see the quote mark before i opened this list ) so let
us assume that

 `reasonable ways to fuck up making a waffle'

is important, or at least interesting. i've received a number of emails from
other users of the sdf, which i will boil down as such:

  * {01} make pancakes
  * {02} burn them
  * {03} do you need a password reset on the cluster?

this list was in no order and the values in {brackets} serve only to allow us
to reference each of the ideas so far with ease. oh! let me make clear:



*** i will probably only write here when emailed an answer to our topic ***

as for {03},

upon any examination, i clearly have included this email by mistake. i did not
begin my existence with the knowledge that cluster passwords and meta-array pw
may be out of allignment. and i did need a password reset. while doing all of
that, i certainly didn't make any waffles. but i also didn't fuck up, in a way
conclusively provable through predicate-to-high-order logic as reasonable, any
waffle, waffles, or rather, the making thereof. but i also did not 01.

as for {01},

making pancakes is sometimes an approximation of making waffles. i will speak
much more on this in the next entry. we'll need to be very careful about how
we define reason, reasonability, in this case especially how we define said in
relation to fuck up-ery. but

as for {02},

although sold to me as 'burn them' which caused me to reject the submission, i
now realize that i was out of line, as i was parsing the data on a miserly-ish
assumption about ... it's english. and i've come to appreciate how compressed
this notion is when presented as "burn them" instead of

call for a verb on waffle that is something like this:burn()
 --> assume for tnt (this none this) as for arguments accepted
  --> freak out.

and i freaked out because someone would have to write "burn" on the parent of
the waffle/s ... and that's what i don't want to accept. what scares me about
the universe. it is this notion and occasional existence of programs that do
but for null else aside from fucking up what i wanted to do.

i didn't invent waffles, probably. but since the dawn of wafflekind, there has
always been, and will always be,


#'WAFFLE:BURN()

which we can describe as a function that, upon the this, renders the this from
anything in (not yet, possible, batter, batter missing one ingredient, etc) to
a very strict different thing, where this happens

 >> ( burned-predicate ( [on] the waffle/s ) )
 >> TRUE, MOTHERFUCKER.

and burned-predicate could also predicate whether the object being tested is
comprised of ash. or further, of but carbon.


waffles are not unreasonable goals or people.



yet regardless of whether i am a person, a waffle, or lib, i can assume that i
do have something akin to, or exactly, the ability to burn, or to be burned, &
with this, the possibility of failure is written eligantly into the stars.

 )

 ( with-love . t )
 ( signed . ( return-last 'libby t ) ) )