Comments on: IDST : The Rules

By: jonesy

jonesy — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:33:53 +0000

For the love of God, get your hands out of your bum and write a new entry!

By: will

will — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:18:11 +0000

It has occurred to me that my idea is actually very similar to the so-called “H-bomb”. Whether the letters are integrated into the arrows or into the phrase itself is apparently irrelevant - the result is ultimately the same and clearly Cameron does indeed put bees in his porridge.
I would suggest that my solution is more elegant, in that it avoids the use of cluttersome arrows, but I admit it does demand a large amount of forward planning. A question of personal taste, perhaps.

By: spastemizer

spastemizer — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:50:34 +0000

I am so in love with this idea that I want to have sex with it.

And you.

By: will

will — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:12:00 +0000

I’m afraid I don’t presently have the resources to present a visual example, but a thought has occurred to me on this matter. What if a sentence were to be constructed such that the words themselves took the shape of the pertinent letters?
Including idst as part of the sentence is all well and good, but it is still possible to remove that part, and thus its protection, before completely destroying the sentence itself.
Imagine, if you will, the phrase “Cameron puts bees in his porridge”. “Cameron” may be written vertically downwards, forming a capital I. “puts” is a little more difficult but, with practice, may be distorted to take the shape of a D. The S again is difficult but in this case I would suggest the three words “bees in his” are written along a properly planned curve to form the letter. The T is then trivial. “Porridge” may be written vertically in a similar fashion to “Cameron”, with the initial P simply widened to form the arms of the T, whilst the rest of the word becomes the shaft.
And there you have it. A construct that can be read both as the statement that we wish to get across, and as it’s own protection clause. Any attempt to destroy the protection will neccessarily destroy the message itself, rendering it true for all eternity.
I almost hesitate to release this idea into the public consciousness. If the terrorists get hold of this information, God help us all.

By: grilly

grilly — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:08:06 +0000

the problem with that, is we are still left with an outside level, and sucessive rubbings in the correct order can render the core message destroyable (sounds like a fantastic flash game in the making, to me).

i propose
this answer to the problem

With this development, the remover must invent a new weapon: break lines. This near-perfect situation is broken by adding small lines in between the inner idst and the outer one, so;

All of a sudden, the outer idst is removable, making it possible to destroy the message. This problem is unresolvable because if the inner idst was attached to the outer idst, it would be possible to destroy them all at once, leaving the message with no protection.

Thus there is always a way to remove any idst label, no matter how complex the nested labelling goes; there is no way to jump out of the system.

A way for the writer to circumvent this altogether is to include idst as part of the original statement, as per step one, and thus it automatically protects itself by referring to the whole sentence. Problem solved.

By: Log

Log — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:50:00 +0000

Here’s Spastemiser’s Atomic IDST Model. It’s truly breathtaking in its scope - by which I mean size - so here’s a link to it…

A link to it. lol

By: spastemizer

spastemizer — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:27:13 +0000

Whilst reading the entry, I had an idea which could completely revolutionize the IDST industry, rendering all previous forms worthless, and all protests regarding the veracity of the written or ‘graffitied’ comments untenable.

Some may consider it overkill. However, considering these troubled times, and the development of new technology and theories in comment destruction and deniablility, i feel you can never be too sure.

Thus I hereby submit my patent for the new ‘Concentric-Atomic IDST Super Structure’, which provides a pretty much infinite trueness guarantee for whatever you happen to write, scribble or draw.

I am more than willing to provide the preliminary sketch-work for this - I would post it here, but I cant, so anyone who wants to see it will have to ask Log to post it somewhere, or get me to email it to them.

By: soulless

soulless — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:45:33 +0000

There was also, of course, the “TINY” clause…

You could write

WARREN SLEEPS WITH HIS HEAD IN HIS MUM’S GASH

In nice big letters on a wall, or paper, or someone’s back. Then in small letters - big enough to easily see up close, but indistinct from a small distance, you’d write TID. Or “true if destroyed”. This forces Warren into a more poignant dilemma. As long as he leaves the graffitti up, there is no proof, no confirmation, nothing but a vague, silly suggestion of his pre-sleep requirements. But there is of course a big fucking piece of wall art insulting him and his mum.

But should he attempt to remove it, the ghastly truth emerges.

I like this one, because it offers hope, but in a very cruel way.

By: Log

Log — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:54:58 +0000

Mr Nicholas, I would refer you to Lesson Two. INDST covers the area of negative IDST induction, and whereas it may not use the language of hill-fuckers such as yourself (If not destroyed true? Utter gash-rinse), it clearly deals with the matters to which you refer, darling.

Now get busy with the fizzy, this bra won’t unclasp itself.

By: the 16th nicholas

the 16th nicholas — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:43:00 +0000

Clear, concise and informative.

However, you have failed to incorporate any reference to the Welsh corrupting of the IDST phenomenon, that of ‘IDT INDT’ (If destroyed true, if not destroyed true’). Whilst it is tempting to dismiss this mutation as pure muttonry, mention of it would display a more complete understanding of your subject matter.

Please see me after class, with all pants removed.