@bkryer What I’m getting at is that you can do things in language you cannot do in the real world. We imagine institutions like Fox News or the NYT to be as we imagine them to be and not as they actually are: very large complicated phenomena. That is why we are reliably surprised when they change quickly as we are expecting them to act like the idea we have of them being fixed entities, instead of, in this case, a multi-headed multi-media presence among multi-headed multi-media presences. Whew, just saying it.

@jasonekratz Sure, but it could be seen as 'the same entity' as a sort of shorthand, both in verbal expression and (eventually, trust me) in thinking

@Ron Not trying for flippancy here. Key to resolution seems to be determining what is meant by "Fox News" or even "Fox". Complicated beast, but doable.

@Ron :: If I can just wade in here thinking I’m smarter than everyone else and can solve problems that I do not fully understand and say this: I believe difficulty in establishing norms of satisfactory definition quickly make the communication function of language difficult to sustain. (Claps hands) You’re welcome. (this is sarcasm)

@hollyhoneychurch Well that’s Zigfried and Sullivan of course. Ziggy is frequently flamboyant. Sully is steady and apparently made mostly of joy. Hard not to like these guys.

@danielpunkass I would never presume to be able to control a mainsheet to begin with, nevermind lose control over one, and then come back in, and report about it all on the lowkey 😁

@pdxmph thank you kindly, learning what folks really mean is fun even when I feel dumb sometimes. Now I'm gonna go do some new twitter math.