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!!!
Jim,
It's nice to hear from you again. Ironically, a guy I swim with now at Pitt is a prof of math at CMU, specializing in set theory. I may have to recruit him to act as my "second" in this mathematical duel here, given that I find myself completely lacking anything resembling a sword.
Two notes:
1) isn't it ironic how a thread, ostensibly on the implied titillating aspects of troublesome women (skinny dipping, bar dancing, and so forth) has been highjacked into an analysis of set theory? What does that say about declining sperm counts in the aging male population, I wonder? What would Darwin say? Perhaps in our modern day and age, mathematical abilities in male masters swimmers are proxy markers for financial acumen, which, in turn, is said to be an aphrodisiac to some...but I digress. It is interesting to me to note that most of the guys here are dragging the discussion towards math; most of the women are dragging it back to concupsicient baby sitters. Call me womanish, but I say more of the latter!
2) However, one quick note on math. Again, virtually all of my limited math knowledge can now be summed up by Edgar Allen Poe's phrase: "forgotten lore." But...isn't calculus itself pretty much based on approximation of the infinitely more shaded variety? I know that no two Civics are exactly the same, that there are all kinds of differences between two that roll off even in sequence from the same Japanese factory assembly line (no doubt those made in our country are even more variable than their overseas, obsessively robotically manufactured brethren.) I absolutely grant you this point.
But isn't a 2006 Civic much different from a 1976 Gremlin, which is, in turn, much different than a Missouri mule, which is, in turn, much different from an amoeba? Can't we glean something, in the calculus sense, at least, from comparing two Civics, which though not created equal exactly, are at least created more equal than two much more different entitities? Can't you make any assertions based on increasingly refined equalities at creation? Or are you saying that if the two things are absolutely equal at the point of creation, they are fated to remain that way in perpetuity, no matter what the outside circumstances might be? Two quarks will always be two quarks, no matter if one is in a nuclear explosion and another sealed up in ice at the the bottom of the Antarctic ice shelf?
Or to circle it back to the other aspect of this thread, two perfectly formed human mammary glands will never form asymmetries over the years?
Forgive all this babbling, by the way. I am trying to distract myself from the pain of a recently yanked molar that has resulted in a dry socket; no doubt a Roxicette hangover is also part of the math fuziness (and unintended ribabldry, if it is thusly perceived.)
Jim,
It's nice to hear from you again. Ironically, a guy I swim with now at Pitt is a prof of math at CMU, specializing in set theory. I may have to recruit him to act as my "second" in this mathematical duel here, given that I find myself completely lacking anything resembling a sword.
Two notes:
1) isn't it ironic how a thread, ostensibly on the implied titillating aspects of troublesome women (skinny dipping, bar dancing, and so forth) has been highjacked into an analysis of set theory? What does that say about declining sperm counts in the aging male population, I wonder? What would Darwin say? Perhaps in our modern day and age, mathematical abilities in male masters swimmers are proxy markers for financial acumen, which, in turn, is said to be an aphrodisiac to some...but I digress. It is interesting to me to note that most of the guys here are dragging the discussion towards math; most of the women are dragging it back to concupsicient baby sitters. Call me womanish, but I say more of the latter!
2) However, one quick note on math. Again, virtually all of my limited math knowledge can now be summed up by Edgar Allen Poe's phrase: "forgotten lore." But...isn't calculus itself pretty much based on approximation of the infinitely more shaded variety? I know that no two Civics are exactly the same, that there are all kinds of differences between two that roll off even in sequence from the same Japanese factory assembly line (no doubt those made in our country are even more variable than their overseas, obsessively robotically manufactured brethren.) I absolutely grant you this point.
But isn't a 2006 Civic much different from a 1976 Gremlin, which is, in turn, much different than a Missouri mule, which is, in turn, much different from an amoeba? Can't we glean something, in the calculus sense, at least, from comparing two Civics, which though not created equal exactly, are at least created more equal than two much more different entitities? Can't you make any assertions based on increasingly refined equalities at creation? Or are you saying that if the two things are absolutely equal at the point of creation, they are fated to remain that way in perpetuity, no matter what the outside circumstances might be? Two quarks will always be two quarks, no matter if one is in a nuclear explosion and another sealed up in ice at the the bottom of the Antarctic ice shelf?
Or to circle it back to the other aspect of this thread, two perfectly formed human mammary glands will never form asymmetries over the years?
Forgive all this babbling, by the way. I am trying to distract myself from the pain of a recently yanked molar that has resulted in a dry socket; no doubt a Roxicette hangover is also part of the math fuziness (and unintended ribabldry, if it is thusly perceived.)
