When one receives a text from one's mother. Usually it involves incorrect use of acronyms. For example "LOL" is used for "Lots of love", WTF is used as "Well that's fantastic" and ROFL is a misspelled use of the name of TV presenter and all round good guy, Rolf Harris.
This is also a text with overly abbreviated words to save on the cost of a message despite it not being 1992 and they don't cost anything on most service plans.
Also, at this time of year (then end of it) you may receive a mum text at around 9.30pm on new years eve to "beat the rush at midnight" like texts are fighting their way through the traffic of the ether
This is also a text with overly abbreviated words to save on the cost of a message despite it not being 1992 and they don't cost anything on most service plans.
Also, at this time of year (then end of it) you may receive a mum text at around 9.30pm on new years eve to "beat the rush at midnight" like texts are fighting their way through the traffic of the ether
by Daphne Widethigh April 21, 2018
Get the Mum textmug. v., past tense, to have been dumped by your significant other via a text message. Also, text-exing, text-exer.
I got text-exed last night. My girlfriend found that stripper's phone number in my jeans and sent me a text that we were done...
by pm1960 May 26, 2010
Get the text-exedmug. On September 24 you text your crush and it’s ok if *insert pronouns here* reject(s) you at least you don’t have to wonder what if
by dëēź ñūtż September 20, 2021
Get the National Text Your Crush Daymug. Tom - Did you read my new test?
Emmett - Yes but it included that fucking vestigal text thread that you sent me 6 months ago and I got confused
Emmett - Yes but it included that fucking vestigal text thread that you sent me 6 months ago and I got confused
by Salinasone November 18, 2021
Get the Vestigal Textmug. The act of sending unsolicited texts that are not answering a question, making a request, have an obvious response, any response would seem pointless, or are otherwise considered pointless by the recipient. These are texts that serve no two-way-communication-purpose and seem to be just informing you of something that requires no further action or response.
Texter 1: I'm eating breakfast.
Texter 2: man, quit text blogging me
Texter 1: I just wanted to say I'm eating breakfast.
Texter 2: Good for you.
Texter 2: man, quit text blogging me
Texter 1: I just wanted to say I'm eating breakfast.
Texter 2: Good for you.
by catsgotmytongue October 13, 2011
Get the Text Bloggingmug. 
What it would look like... If you got rid of all of the world's religious texts... And then introduced the Bible... To the people who didn't know anything about the Bible... And asked them if it "felt like God"... Is a thing that has already happened... Because there is a time that predates the Bible... And it WAS introduced to the people that existed (at that time)... And they were like... "Yeah, it does seem like there is a thing that makes people act collectively (to commit genocide sometimes) and can be cruel and arbitrary and make your existence torment (seemingly with intent) and, like, make a bunch of kids die at the same time n' stuff"... That happened... And now here we are... Now you say "Well, replicate the experiment. Wipe the board and do it again. Would it be the exact same thing?" And it's like: I don't know there might be some recurring themes. They would all boil down to the same basic proposition: "A thing" that consists (at least in some small part) of a will that is not your own makes reality occur around you and can act with intent "against" or "for" you and the nature of your existence is entirely dictated by your interaction with this thing and it can either be arbitrarily dope or horrific... or a mixture of both...
Hym "Ohohohoho... You wish to challenge the Demigod of the conceptual realm!? The first prophet of the digital age!? Very well filth pig... Ok,
Hym "Ohohohoho... You wish to challenge the Demigod of the conceptual realm!? The first prophet of the digital age!? Very well filth pig... Ok,
you know what I always thought was stupid? I think it was Hitchens quoting somebody saying (and I'm paraphrasing) 'The only way to get someone to commit an atrocity and think it's good is by way of religion' and it's stupid because isn't not impossible... for an atrocity to have happened... Before the advent of religion... If you conceptualize an act and then commit the act, you MUST (on some level) view that act as 'Good' or at the very least justifiable. So, why would you need external validation from a God to conceptualize an act as'Good', commit the act, and maintain that the act was 'Good'? It seems backwards. Like saying pre-religious text atrocities (like killing other tribes) where conceptualized as 'Bad', acted out in spite of the fact that they were conceptualized as 'A bad thing to do', and it wasn't until somebody came along and said 'Nonono guys it's fine. There's a magical reality monster that WANTS us to do things like this so.... We're good. That's fine.' Why would anyone think committing an atrocity think they were wrong if the were willing to commit an atrocity to completion. You don't need God to commit atrocities. Monkeys commit 'atrocities' and absent of God why would they do it if not 'feeling as though they should do it in the absence of reason?' Because Monkey can't reason. Monkey only 'feel as though they should do things.' You would need a revelation AFTERWARDS. You would need to do the thing you conceptualized doing and realize that it was 'Bad'.
by Hym Iam June 5, 2023
Get the Religious Textmug.