Beau Peep Notice Board
Beau Peep Notice Board => Outpourings => Topic started by: Diane CBPFC on March 04, 2007, 01:46:20 PM
-
The movie theater
A man lay sprawled across three entire seats in a theater. When the usher came by and noticed this, he whispered to the man, ''Sorry, sir, but you're only allowed one seat.''
The man groaned but didn't budge.
The usher became impatient. ''Sir,'' the usher said, ''if you don't get up from there I'm going to have to call the manager.''
Again, the man just groaned, which infuriated the usher who turned and marched briskly back up the aisle in search of his manager.
In a few moments, both the usher and the manager returned and stood over the man. Together the two of them tried repeatedly to move him, but with no success. Finally, they summoned the police.
The cop surveyed the situation briefly. ''All right buddy, what's your name?''
''Sam,'' the man moaned.
''Where ya from, Sam?'' the cop asked.
''The balcony.''
-
My students thought "The Balcony" was the name of the town where he lived.
-
I thought it was extremely funny, Diane. If I hadn't heard it before I'd have laughed out loud.
I'm here alone, so had I laughed, would I have made a sound....?
-
Only philosophically.
-
I didn't laugh (only because I'd heard it before - nothing wrong with the joke), but I did breathe a short sniff of recognition through my nostrils whilst completely on my own.
And I heard that.
You can't hear your own laughter, Peepsie? Are you impaired?
-
And I heard that.
You can't hear your own laughter, Peepsie? Are you impaired?
Well, in that case I must have made a sound, because I was aware of my laughter.
I was thinking of the tree in the middle of a forest that falls, but because there's no-one there it doesn't make a sound. Although a stick-insect might hear it of course... or a ladybird...
-
If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?
Yes.
Any other life-riddles you need sorting?
-
The reason that is does not make a sound is that there are gangs of squirrels who lower the tree down using a series of pulleys.
(c) Bill Bailey
-
I've never subscribed to that tree-forest-sound philosophical conundrum, because since the electronic age we have been able to solve it by positioning a tape recorder next to a tree which we adjudge is just about to collapse, checking it every day until it does so, and then playing back the recording, thus verifying that the sound is created whether we are there to hear it or not.
-
Malc, in quantum theory, electrons and photons change their behaviour depending on how they are being observed. Perhaps the trees are making a sound only because they know a tape-recorder is nearby.
-
Look up "Schr?dinger's cat".
-
I want to go on record as being the first one to inject something serious into this board.
-
I think the point is there is only a sound if there is a receptacle - ear or tape-recorder, to record it.
-
The tree goes "splat". Absolutely, 100% "splat". What people don't know is that there is also cartoon writing of the word "splat" just above the fallen tree.
-
Precisely. The presence of a sound on a tape recorder does not rule out its absence in its absence.
-
What people don't know is that there is also cartoon writing of the word "splat" just above the fallen tree.
Only if someone is there to see it.
-
I think the caption would say "crash", not "splat". Trees don't go "splat" even if no-one's there to hear them.
-
Trees don't go "splat" even if no-one's there to hear them.
No, you mean trees don't go "splat" even if someone is there to hear them.
-
The sound you hear is me clapping with one hand.
-
Roger, I'm getting the impression that you're not all there.
-
All I'm trying to do is sort out the mysteries of life for you.
Trees that fall when nobody's around go "splat".
It's dead easy to clap with one hand.
The colour of a white heron when it stands in the snow is...white.
And, as has been established, the meaning of life is 42.
Give me a hard one.
-
Who am I?
-
Well, obviously, you're a white heron who sits on a tree and goes "splat" when nobody's listening.
-
That's actually very close. You chould be a psychologist or something.
-
I certainly chould.
-
Spelling things incorrectly on this board is one of my rebellious outlets.
-
Me to.
-
But I do it with grater flair.
-
Rubber trees go BOING!
-
Good night, Johnboy...good night, Jim Bob...move over, Mary Ellen........
-
You would've thought someone would have heard that poor bugger go "Ahhhhhh" as he fell from the balcony wouldn't you?
-
You would've thought someone would have heard that poor bugger go "Ahhhhhh" as he fell from the balcony wouldn't you?
But if no-one else was there, would he have made a sound?
-
Of course he made a sound. Someone else was there because it was he (or she) who pushed him off. The clues are in the joke.
-
Earlier in the topic the replies went as follows:
Mince: Who am I?
Roger: Well, obviously, you're a white heron who sits on a tree and goes "splat" when nobody's listening.
Mince: That's actually very close. You chould be a psychologist or something.
Roger: I certainly chould.
Mince: Spelling things incorrectly on this board is one of my rebellious outlets.
Roger: Me to.
Mince: But I do it with grater flair.
I would like to point out that I actually thought the phrase "grater flair" contained two misspellings and that therefore (my two mistakes being greater than Roger's one mistake) the statement was true. Ironically, since "flair" is the correct spelling and that therefore I spelt it wrong, the statement is still correct.
-
What?
-
I am trying to say that my intended failed misspelling of the second word actually failed and the resulting word, though spelt correctly, failed to mean that I spell incorrectly to be rebellious. However, the irony is that in failing to misspell my intended misspelling I actually succeeded in proving that my rebellious misspelling was a reality despite the failure of the intended failed spelling.
I hope that clears things up.
-
What?
-
Eat yer heart out, Sir Humphrey!
-
Okay, Roger, let's try it this way.
Let X be the failed misspelling.
Let Y be the set of all spellings that failed.
Let Z be all the subsets of misspellings of words from set Y.
Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.
Okay, that bit's obvious. But now (and this is the clever bit), if we compare all the possible subsets of XZ against those of YZ (remembering that the latter represents failed misspellings) we clearly get two equations:
X(Z) ? X ? Y . . . (1)
and
Y(Z) ? X + ? . . . (2)
where ? is the extent of the irony.
Combining these two (and noting that X ? Y and XZ ? ?) we arrive at ?X ? Y? (Z?).
From this it's easy to see that the only solutions are X = ? and Y = either ? or ?.
I can't make it clearer than that.
-
Those equations got me thinking...
Why is it that long is shorter than short,
And short is longer than long?
Why is long not longer than short
And short not shorter than long?
Why is not shorter shorter than short,
As longer is longer than long?
And why is longer shorter than shorter
And shorter not shorter than long?
If shorter was short and short was shorter,
Then shorter'd be shorter than short.
But if long were longer and longer were long
Then longer'd be shorter than long.
I hereby suggest that shorter be long
And longer be shorter instead.
Then long would be longer
'Thus longer than short
And short could be just as it was.
But if longer is shorter, is shorter longer,
And shorter not long as I said?
And if long is now longer and shorter now long,
Is short still as short as it was?
Can longer be shorter, whilst shorter is long,
Or is shorter now longer not long?
And if long is now longer and shorter is long,
Is long not shorter as well?
???
-
Tom, "shot" is shorter than "short", and whereas I don't think anyone deserves to be short, some people deserve to be shot.
-
Okay, Roger, let's try it this way.
Let X be the failed misspelling.
Let Y be the set of all spellings that failed.
Let Z be all the subsets of misspellings of words from set Y.
Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.
Okay, that bit's obvious. But now (and this is the clever bit), if we compare all the possible subsets of XZ against those of YZ (remembering that the latter represents failed misspellings) we clearly get two equations:
X(Z) ? X ? Y . . . (1)
and
Y(Z) ? X + ? . . . (2)
where ? is the extent of the irony.
Combining these two (and noting that X ? Y and XZ ? ?) we arrive at ?X ? Y? (Z?).
From this it's easy to see that the only solutions are X = ? and Y = either ? or ?.
I can't make it clearer than that.
How much do you normaly charge for figuring out something like this?
I wonder because I have a son going into High School next fall.
-
Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.
There's no such symbol as ? on my keyboard, therefore the whole thing is bogus, a lot of hooey thought up by pantywaist intellectuals with communist computers.
-
X ? Y ?
-
Of course not.
X is the failed misspelling, which is one element of a set.
Y is the set of all spellings that failed, which is a set of elements.
How can they be equal?
Okay, you could argue that Y is a one element set (in which case the cardinal value of each element Y? ? X) but you would first have to assume that sets and elements can both be arguments in reciprocal functions. This is clearly not possible in this case:
Taking your assumption, we quickly get:
X ? Y ? ?X? + ?Y?
and rearranging this gives:
X ? Y ? X + X???Y??
(I am here using ?? in its classical sense - let's not get into all that indeterminate positive correlation crap.)
Clearly there is a contradiction between the X?Y and the X?Y, and so our initial assumption that X = Y must be wrong, and so X ? Y.
-
Never put all your X in one basket, that's Y.
-
You're just being silly now.
-
S, I M.