I am sorry this topic has absolutely nothing to do with swimming, but that is the weirdest thing that ever happened to me and who else would I share it with but my beloved swimming community :-)))
Anyways, here is what happened to me today.I went to Mall of America to do some shopping.I mean I finally set aside money to invest into something non-related to swimming.I am definitely not a shopaholic, but today I felt the urge to get into some new clothes.Well, afew hours after browsing that huge concentration of temptations I gathered quite e few purchases.To top it off I decided to get myself some cool jeans, so I ended up in one of the clothing shops.I had some trouble finding my size and I caught an eye of A GORGEOUS young lady that was working there and asked her to help me out(well, because she was so good-looking, I obviously had even more trouble finding stuff :-))).She turned out to be a sweet-heart and pretty much guided me through all my shopping experience at this little shop and I finally had 2 pair of jeans that I liked after trying out thousands of them(well, not exactly that many, but you know what I mean).So it was time for me to go, but I kinda felt reluctant to leave without having a little chat with that cutie.So I asked her name and stuff and we had a pleasant little conversation.Man, she told me to stop by some time to say hello :-)))Maybe she liked me?'Cause I surely liked her, lol:))
Anyways we finished talking, smiled to each other, wished each other good night and all those things and I headed out home thinking about nothing but that girl I just met.
Ok, guess what happened when I got home?I realised that the girl totally stole my brains at the moment when we were talking, BECAUSE I LEFT THE STRORE WITH THE JEANS IN MY HANDS FORGETTING(I MEAN FORGETTING!!!!) TO PAY FOR THEM!!!
OH my GOD!!!I never shoplift or anything of a kind and never ever anything like that happened to me!
Should I go back there tomorrow and pay or is that going to look weird?The most amazing part is that the jeans had those magnetic devices but they obviously never got activated or whatnot...
WOW, I mean WOOOOOOOOOOW.I must have really liked the girl, 'cause my brain was obviously paralized for that moment...I promised her I would stop by again :-)))She told me when she works.I was trying to be a decent guy and not jump into the whole "Can I have your number" thing right away, lol.
Man, all I have to say is : women are trouble , or from the woman's view on the situation it could be: men are so stupid!!!
Parents
Former Member
Also,common logic error: Women = trouble has no information value regarding men and trouble. Also Women= trouble is an observer dependent assessment posted by Allen Stark
From a strickly mathematical perspective (which is not in fact the "real" situation here of course), there is NO logical error in the statement that "If" women = trouble AND men are not equal to women, then we can conclude that men are not equal to trouble as well (as Muppet observed).....The second statement you made about women = trouble being an observer dependent assessment may be true but it has absolutely no logical relevance to the first statement you made....So your comment that the assumption women = trouble gives no information referring to men and trouble is ONLY true if you also assume there is either no way to compare women and men based on the relation "equal to" (as was assumed to exist between women and trouble) and/or there is no way to compare men and trouble based on equality.....If we do, however, assume that such a comparison between men and women also exists (and such a comparison between men and trouble also exists) then there are only two possible conclusions we can make "IF" we also assume women = trouble..... and they are:
1) If Men = women as well, then it must also follow that men = trouble
2) If men are not equal to women, then it must also follow that men are not equal to trouble.
this assertion I've made is a direct consequence of what's called the "transitivity property of equality"....and the reason why this property holds is because equality is an accepted example of whats called an "equivalence relation".
Sorry if my response sounds arrogant or overly nerdy....but based on a strictly mathematical sense of what equality means (and you did say "logical" in your first comment), I then have to disagree with your first comment about the logical error in saying that women = trouble gives no information about men and trouble....sorry Allen....it depends on whether or not a similar mathematical comparison between men and women (and men and trouble) can also be made based on equality.
The real problem here (if we are to take this seriously ...and of course its not)is that the "assumption" made that women = trouble is meaningless as a purely mathematical statement (and so is the notion that men not equal to women and men not equal to trouble for that matter)...which is similar to what your second comment is saying (I think?).
Newmastersswimmer
P.S. A similar flaw in using mathematics as a strict measuring stick is the statement that all men are created "equal".....b/c If we interpret that statement in the strictest mathematical sense , then the conclusion would be that there is only one man....i.e. the set of all men would then consist of only one element....all of us being identical clones of one another in the absolute stricktest sense imaginable.
Also,common logic error: Women = trouble has no information value regarding men and trouble. Also Women= trouble is an observer dependent assessment posted by Allen Stark
From a strickly mathematical perspective (which is not in fact the "real" situation here of course), there is NO logical error in the statement that "If" women = trouble AND men are not equal to women, then we can conclude that men are not equal to trouble as well (as Muppet observed).....The second statement you made about women = trouble being an observer dependent assessment may be true but it has absolutely no logical relevance to the first statement you made....So your comment that the assumption women = trouble gives no information referring to men and trouble is ONLY true if you also assume there is either no way to compare women and men based on the relation "equal to" (as was assumed to exist between women and trouble) and/or there is no way to compare men and trouble based on equality.....If we do, however, assume that such a comparison between men and women also exists (and such a comparison between men and trouble also exists) then there are only two possible conclusions we can make "IF" we also assume women = trouble..... and they are:
1) If Men = women as well, then it must also follow that men = trouble
2) If men are not equal to women, then it must also follow that men are not equal to trouble.
this assertion I've made is a direct consequence of what's called the "transitivity property of equality"....and the reason why this property holds is because equality is an accepted example of whats called an "equivalence relation".
Sorry if my response sounds arrogant or overly nerdy....but based on a strictly mathematical sense of what equality means (and you did say "logical" in your first comment), I then have to disagree with your first comment about the logical error in saying that women = trouble gives no information about men and trouble....sorry Allen....it depends on whether or not a similar mathematical comparison between men and women (and men and trouble) can also be made based on equality.
The real problem here (if we are to take this seriously ...and of course its not)is that the "assumption" made that women = trouble is meaningless as a purely mathematical statement (and so is the notion that men not equal to women and men not equal to trouble for that matter)...which is similar to what your second comment is saying (I think?).
Newmastersswimmer
P.S. A similar flaw in using mathematics as a strict measuring stick is the statement that all men are created "equal".....b/c If we interpret that statement in the strictest mathematical sense , then the conclusion would be that there is only one man....i.e. the set of all men would then consist of only one element....all of us being identical clones of one another in the absolute stricktest sense imaginable.
