From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public From: Scott Adams Subject: Re: Philosophers Date: 1998/02/01 Message-ID: <34D46C1D.EA6E417F@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 321063597 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com> <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net> <01bd2c40$b62837a0$7261b693@HP5079Q> <34CFDD2F.4621@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Best IT Services (BITS) X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Feb 01 6:36:07 AM CST 1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-01T06:36:07-06:00 List-Id: Okay...what about marriage than...the only rule I can point to is the undocumented, Greater Fool Theorem (GFT) as applied to nuptuality says that the spuse must have found one The Goobers wrote: > dogmat wrote: > > > > docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net>... > > > > > As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules. I > > > believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song > > > now or I get fifteen ghost points. > > > > Well, just to quibble, I would say they were consistent (at any one time). > > Its just that > > the players had the ability to change the rules on a dime. Consistency was > > always > > a valid argument in protesting a rule. Its just that the argument never one > > because another > > rule would be invented that resolved any so-called inconsistency. It all > > made perfect sense. > > Your quibble is acceptable if and only if consistency is something which > occurs at a point ('at any one time'). If one needs a line, curve, or > more complex construct in order to gauge consistency then your quibble > is quickly, quite querulously, quashed. > > DD -- _______________________________________________________ Best Information Technology Services (BITS) Scott Adams, President http://www.b-it-s.com ~or~ mailto:sadams9@ix.netcom.com _______________________________________________________