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
But you said the satatement that women = trouble gives no information about how men and trouble relate....so you are saying that "If" we assume that women = trouble...then..blah blah....which means we are now allowed to accept that women = trouble in this completely mathematical sense (and as Muppet says it, we are also allowed to mathematically assume men is not equal to women)....so then why can we not make similar mathematical conclusions about men and trouble then??.....But your second statement is about the validity of the assumption about women = trouble.....that validity is completely irrelevant to an implication that already assumes women = trouble and men is not equal to women.....Do you see my point? (even though you are obviously only joking when referring to rich and his desire to map point for point into the set of women...he he)
And the notion of equal here is much stronger than just having sets mapping into other sets in a 1-1 onto fashion....we're talking about "categorical isomorphisms in every sense of the word" when we say equals here in the stricktest sense...although even when using mappings of a 1-1 onto fashion to represent "equals", it would still be all that is necessary to prove my assertions in my last posting in fact....its enough to establish an equivalence relation and hence the transitivity law I referred too.
Not trying to get personal here....just precise thats all...I still like you and all Allen (even if you are a breasstroker...LOL!!)
Newmastersswimmer
But you said the satatement that women = trouble gives no information about how men and trouble relate....so you are saying that "If" we assume that women = trouble...then..blah blah....which means we are now allowed to accept that women = trouble in this completely mathematical sense (and as Muppet says it, we are also allowed to mathematically assume men is not equal to women)....so then why can we not make similar mathematical conclusions about men and trouble then??.....But your second statement is about the validity of the assumption about women = trouble.....that validity is completely irrelevant to an implication that already assumes women = trouble and men is not equal to women.....Do you see my point? (even though you are obviously only joking when referring to rich and his desire to map point for point into the set of women...he he)
And the notion of equal here is much stronger than just having sets mapping into other sets in a 1-1 onto fashion....we're talking about "categorical isomorphisms in every sense of the word" when we say equals here in the stricktest sense...although even when using mappings of a 1-1 onto fashion to represent "equals", it would still be all that is necessary to prove my assertions in my last posting in fact....its enough to establish an equivalence relation and hence the transitivity law I referred too.
Not trying to get personal here....just precise thats all...I still like you and all Allen (even if you are a breasstroker...LOL!!)
Newmastersswimmer
