C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire

[Jack Spencer Jr]

While this theory is interesting and all, I can't help but think it's dead wrong.  At least in one or two respects.

You see, a love seat is little more than a short sofa, so it really belongs under sofas.  By this I define a sofa as a piece of funiture where more than one person can sit or one person can stretch out and take a nap.

Oh sure, your legs will hang over the edge of a love seat and you can nap in a chair, but you have to nap sitting up in a chair.  That doesn't count.

OTOH I think there's another lobe to the model in Recliners.  Recliners do appear to be chairs.  Aha! and so they do to the untrained eye.  But a recliner can lean back and has optional heat and massage.  It is clearly for people who have more on their mind than just sitting.  Theirs is a total recliner experience.  They are one with the recliner.  The ball game may be on the TV, but they don't care because they are sitting in their recliner and little motors are kneeding their tender flesh.

SO I'm calling this the CSR model and as soon as I think of a lame joke to go with those letters I'll use it.

BTW, before someone brings it up, there is no such thing as a bench.  In theory they may exist, but in practice, in actual sitting benches just aren't practical.

Unless you're a wino at the bus station.

[Blake Hutchins]

Two observations:

1.  The theory means the whole world is a sofa.

2.  This model implicitly discriminates against those individuals who stand or lie down, but do not sit, such as the ass-challenged among us.  What is so bloody superior about sitting?

B.

[John Wick]

You all are missing the point.

Yes, there are benches and ottomans and even weird Sweedish furniture you can only find in fascist furniture stores that insist everything you buy be disposable.

But in the end, it all fits the theory. Despite their own individual uniqueness, they are only Chairs, Loveseats and Sofas. They fit the theory, therefore, the theory is valid.

Those who propose that the 3 categories I proposed are so broad that anything could fit within them is also missing the point.

Take care,
John

(By the way Jared, I play a mean set of punk trap drums. But you already knew that, didn't you?)

[333Chronzon]

My concern lies not so much with the specific manifestations of devices used to 'sit' ( or lay, recline, squat - really any bodily position at all when I think about it) upon but how each such specific device *serves* the ostensible purpose of their creation.

Does it succeed or fail in supporting by ass?

Scott B.

[Mytholder]

Jared is a bad man, and made me laugh.

Anyway, I think there's a second set of factors, or more accurately stances. These would be Perching, Lounging and Lying. (P/L/Ly)...

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Actually, isn't "Lying" an absence of Stance?

Oh, and for the record, my next pulp RPG character will be a wrestler named "Arms" Akimbo.

[unodiablo]

Dude,
I am totally there with your black metal band. Can you get me a full set of voltage converters for my preamp/amp?

And can you see to it that Radiopuhelimut get back together? I always wanted to see them, just didn't know when I'd be in finland...

Or better yet, we got John Wick, Mike Holmes and myself to start an instant punk band next GenCon. And we'll only write songs about Lord Cthulhu. Keg Party in Mikes' basement!!!

:smile: Sean

p.s. what is this triangle model thing of which you whackos speak? it sounds like the end of civilisation approaches!

[Laurel]

I find it very disturbing that C/L/S as presented doesn't take into account the different ways in which men and women sit.  Some may argue that in an ideal situation, attractive nubile females would only sit in men's laps while men assume the C/L/S of their choice.  Nevertheless, not all women meet the definition of attractive and nubile and therefore they must be represented as unique obstacle to unilateral genderless C/L/S adoption. I'd like you all to take a step back from your current analysis and look at gender issues and how they affect the use of C/L/S in everyday life.  

[Mike Holmes]

Wow. Good job Laurel. Bring up the feminist angle and you have the whole Forge stymied. :smile:

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

We've done a pretty good job beating up on the model, but you know what?  The other day, I sat down in a Sofa, all by myself.  It felt really wierd for a while, but then I thought about the model.  This might be a Sofa, but I'm just sitting in it by myself, so for all practical purposes, it might as well be a Chair!

When I stopped thinking about it as a Sofa, my Seating experience was very much improved.  I think John may be onto something here.

Gordon C. Landis

[Jared A. Sorensen]

How about the floor?

Technically, it's a sofa (more than 2 people can sit on the floor in most situations). However, it can also "seat" a chair, loveseat or sofa.

Which means it's really a Meta-Seat. And because people can also sit on the bare ground, the Earth is a Meta-Seat that can support Floors and the standard C/L/S.

- J

[Le Joueur]

Is this where I post a long, somewhat unrelated, counter-theory?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:

How about the floor?

Technically, it's a sofa (more than 2 people can sit on the floor in most situations). However, it can also "seat" a chair, loveseat or sofa.

Which means it's really a Meta-Seat. And because people can also sit on the bare ground, the Earth is a Meta-Seat that can support Floors and the standard C/L/S.everything in the world falls into" his Sitting Theory.  While this is true, it actually excludes the world (and as Jared points out, the floor) itself.  What about sitting on the floor or the ground or the world?  It is<only for a moment, all the way to long, relaxed, extended periods<can<only for a moment<extended period< This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-15 10:53 ]