Women Are Trouble!

Poolraat: I think you are trouble with that new signature! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I thought I might get someone's hackles up with that one. There will be a new one up soon.

Sounds like a good Idea. I will wait until right before nationals to take my pic so I can have the full muppet effect with my hair and best Fortress-esque muscle tone. Muppet: You are definitely trouble! I took a picture of my "gun" to attempt to compete with the SwimStud and newmastersswimmer's "guns," but my camera is not downloading now. Besides, I could not possibly keep up with you in the muscle department! I just aspire to have more muscle. And since I have "bad technique," ;) , I have to try to keep up with your teammates somehow. Especially since you, and they, train way more than me. (Except my secret nemesis; she's apparently a slacker like me.) :banana: :dedhorse: (I almost forgot the emoticons. :eek: )

I have never bought or ogled the SI swimsuit edition. Wish I could say the same. I LOVED it when Vendela was on the cover dynamic.si.cnn.com/.../0222.html in 1993. She was BUFF for a model. I remember being very encourged to see some definition.

You should be scoring big points with the wife then. I don't know any men that don't give it at least a perfunctory glance. They should have some equivalent for women so we could decide if the men were all disgustingly anorexic. Then USMS swimmers would be united in their view. We could attempt to engage in activism like Dave's suggests and tell SI to offer only USS/USMS swimmers in their "swimsuit" issue. Didn't Spain just ban all the anorexics? I only said I didn't ogle the SI Swimsuit Edition...our local shopping mall is a challenge to navigate when you're craning your neck...it's always summer there...LOL Wish I could say the same. I LOVED it when Vendela was on the cover dynamic.si.cnn.com/.../0222.html in 1993. She was BUFF for a model. I remember being very encourged to see some definition. (S)He-Man, Your avatar has given me an Idea...I think we should do our own PDF version for the USMS forums. We can have a unisex calendar, with volunteers posing in their Fastskins etc...nothing vulgar...just showing off our buff guns etc. I call dibs on Dec though with the SpeedoSanta pic! :rofl: :rofl:

I was out with friends in bar for drinks one night and this lady wanted to talk, so we sat and chatted for ten to fifteen minutes..... After being questioned about where I work, what I do, do I rent or own a house, how long have I been employed at my job, how long have I been divorced, how many kids do I have, how old are my kids….I finally told her….Gosh, I already have a job and I own a car......She said, “What does that mean? I said, I feel like I am in the middle of a job interview or filling out a loan application to buy a car. Hey, I welcome genuine interest, and I am a very open forthright guy....but this was WAY, WAY over the edge….. I've had this happen on several occasions, and I found this line of questioning to be a bit rude when first meeting a person. When faced with this type of interrogation, I tend to respond by proudly saying I never went to college, I work on a road crew, divorce is pending, I have 5 kids, I drive an 85 pick-up truck, etc. Another annoying thing is people who refer to their previous dates by profession, such as "I used to date this football player, sea caption, lawyer, doctor, actor, artist, blah, blah blah." I've always been tempted to respond with "I used to date this pro cheerleader, aerobics instructor, belly dancer, etc." Never had the gumption to pull that one off though. When meeting someone strange at a mall or store, I've had good luck by offering to meet them at a restaurant or coffee shop instead of asking for their number. Anyone who works in retail sales becomes very wary of potential stalkers. After all, you know where they work. There is a risk that they won't show up, but I think most women appreciate the safety factor. Rick

(S)He-Man, Your avatar has given me an Idea...I think we should do our own PDF version for the USMS forums. We can have a unisex calendar, with volunteers posing in their Fastskins etc...nothing vulgar...just showing off our buff guns etc. I call dibs on Dec though with the SpeedoSanta pic! :rofl: :rofl: Ha! I draw the line at my avatar. I may get carried away, but I know when to put on the breaks! BTW, I would much prefer to see you as a cherub in February. Leprechaun in March comes in second. ;)

Ha! I draw the line at my avatar. I may get carried away, but I know when to put on the breaks! BTW, I would much prefer to see you as a cherub in February. Leprechaun in March comes in second. ;) Oh yeah. I can't do a cherub...not sure they make those wings in my size...

Sounds like a good Idea. I will wait until right before nationals to take my pic so I can have the full muppet effect with my hair and best Fortress-esque muscle tone. Jeff..If you want we could do a centrefold of us both. You can wear the "Stars and Stripes" Speedos, and I'll wear the "Union Jack" ones... An Uncle Sam and John Bull type thing...maybe we can get George to represent our Canadian cousins--he can just sport a Maple leaf! :joker: Are you in??

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.

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.)