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!!!
only "slightly" better...I recall telling you before that I wasn't a big fan of that one either...LOL!! :D
Yes, but I think there are several alleged, though not admitted, women who thought this one was pretty hot. I recall a few wolf whistles. Which raises the question of whether Rich can really be in the set of "men" or the logically different set of "wolf-man" or "wo-man." Since (S)he-man is in the set of "Wo-men," then maybe "wolf man" can be too.
Hola, the revenge of the abtruse. Set theory is tennis, right?
Les, perhaps you should counter the Bork's blather with an earnest discussion of Legal Theories and their attendant rights, duties, obligations, privileges-z-z-z-z...
Regarding set assumption theory, Rich does not ever map outside the set "trouble." When he posts on breaststroke threads, he is usually posting as a jokey Detester of Flyers. That is not a positive attribute that would logically place him outside the set "trouble" because of the aura of breaststroke. Thus, he is in the totally inside the set "trouble" speaking hypothetically of course.
The avatar only confirms that Rich is in the set "trouble."
Re: Rich's new avatar: That's always been my favorite.
posted by our new resident set theorist Fortress
Ah Fort sweetie....I think that you should stick with Law o.k. and try not "mapping into" other things like set theory o.k....LOL!!! (just joking of course!!!!)
Newmastersswimmer
That's only cuz my legal analysis agreed with your mathematical analysis! I can't compete at all in the mathcapades here... But you better be nice or you won't be able to join our "shoulder injury" table at nationals! I just said on the "which poster do you want to meet" thread that math geeks were welcome, but only nice math geeks. There will be no disucssion of math theories at that table. LOL. The math meanies can go to Hooters, where I'm sure women are trouble. Women swimmers are never trouble. We just map into the "sweetness and light" set.
posted by the fort
You know I was only teasing now....Can you see why Heather loathes me so much now?.....Imagine having to deal with my personality like this on a daily basis....only for 5 or 6 more months in a row...LOL!! Actually Law and math are very closely related in the sense that in both disciplines the idea is to create rigorous airtight arguments that meet all the requirements of basic logic (such as avoiding any of the classic errors of fallonious reasoning)....So our brains probably think a lot more alike than they do differently.
I won't be able to make this upcoming SCY Nats in Washington, but I will be at the next one in Austin TX. As far as sitting at your table goes....well it depends on one thing....How good are you at bar dancing? 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
Sorry,I agree that it is true as a simplistic mathmatical relationship,but logically it is overly simplistic. I think we can agree that the set "women" does not map point for point in the set "trouble" But if it did,then how would you explain that the set "Swimstud" has points mapping outside of the set"trouble" (when he is posting about breaststroke) and with in the set "trouble"(most of the rest of the time) and he clearly does not map into the set "women"(though he'd like to be as close to that set as possible.)
No offense Rich,I'm just using you as a hypothetical example.
Hehe But I 'm a friendly trouble...trying to crack a smile rather than a snarl. I can't say you're not wrong but there are a few posters here in the set "women" that definitely fit "trouble;" albeit innocuous "trouble."
Jim: not sure this is true. All Honda Civics are created equal, but once they hit the road (or in the case of my Civic, a concrete bunker), they are in no way equal, right?
As an identical twin (granted, not an identical clone in the absolute strictest sense imaginable, but nonetheless on the far end of the spectrum that leads that way), I can second the notion that what starts out very similar at the moment of creation can diverge over time into two separate, still similar, but different entities: in my brother's case, an ubermensch; in mine, something of a toothless codger. posted by Jim Thorton
Hey Jim....Long time since I've said hello....I have enjoyed reading some of your recent posts around here though. Tell your twin bro I said hello too. I hope all is well with him these days....he's a very interesting guy!
The problem with your analysis Jim is that All Honda Civics are most definitely NOT created equal in the strictest mathematical sense. To use the law of transitivity for equality the way Muppet used it (and I backed it up) you need to operate ONLY within the mathematical universe....there are NO two actual physical objects in this universe that can be said to be equal in this sense....No two objects can have exactly the same identical mass ...or length for example....although two seperate elementary particles can have very close to identical masses (like say two different top quarks or something)....certianly two objects the size of cars may seem identical, but in actuality they differ from one another in any possible way that can be physically measured ....So this transitivity law of equality does not apply to things in the physical world.....the joke Muppet was making was to use an assumption about women equaling trouble as if women and trouble were purely mathematical objects.
newmastersswimmer
Rich please do us all a favor and lose the new avatar dude!....I would actually much rather see your goggles mug shot (or even your flex avatar...or even my sickly cat avatar for crying out loud...LOL!!!)
Newmastersswimmer
p.s. As far as the legal interpretations go fort, I'll take your word for it since I have absolutely NO expertise in that area.
Rich please do us all a favor and lose the new avatar dude!....I would actually much rather see your goggles mug shot (or even your flex avatar...or even my sickly cat avatar for crying out loud...LOL!!!)
Newmastersswimmer
What you don't like my new look?
OK I put this one up again. It's a psych thing right now as I invoke the Goodhew and Wilkie this weekend, and mostly the ladies enjoyed it first time around... :)
What you don't like my new look?
OK I put this one up again. It's a psych thing right now as I invoke the Goodhew and Wilkie this weekend, and mostly the ladies enjoyed it first time around...
posted by B.B.
only "slightly" better...I recall telling you before that I wasn't a big fan of that one either...LOL!! :D
Newmastersswimmer
