squish7 / laughs

CHR = 1 / INT

squish303: now a gay guy looses about 99% of his chance of
ever becoming my boyfriend or even getting me to go out on
a first date when he says these two lines:
Zboy77: it sucked i like voyager its well done.
Zboy77: i hated ds9 now that was bad

IggY2K: hehe

squish303: that's fuckin'ass SCARY

IggY2K: yeah! are you sure he's not being sarcastic?

squish303: no he's serious!!

squish303: "WELL DONE" !?

IggY2K: oh well ... voyager is a gay show anyway :-)

squish303: hahaha.... what makes you say that

IggY2K: heh what doesn't make me say that ...

squish303: heehee

squish303: besides, he's 6'4," i like cute little short guys

squish303: but he's really cute:-(

IggY2K: is he like in a biker gang too or something?

squish303: HAHAHA

squish303: rotfl!

IggY2K: :-)

squish303: he probably is after that statement isn't he


IggY2K: hehe i don't know ...


squish303: I WANT AN ANSWER

IggY2K: Maybe it's a genetic dependency: Cuteness =


squish303: no no no no no

squish303: and i have proof to the contrary

squish303: excellent proof

IggY2K: oh?

IggY2K: don't tell me you think Freddie Prinze Jr is smart!

squish303: all we need is one counterexample to disprove
your theorem, so we need someone who is very intelligent
and completely adorable

squish303: YES

IggY2K: Oh I think not!

IggY2K: Although I don't actually know how smart he is, I don't
think he's
that smart

squish303: ahhh but you see, we do not need someone that
is emphatically smart AND emphatically cute to disprove
your statement. it is enough that we point out that one of the
cutest guys on the planet, who by your equation should be
one of the stupidest guys on the planet, is in fact, not.

IggY2K: ah but you see you have to prove that he is not, in fact,

IggY2K: we have no evidence either wya

IggY2K: er wya

IggY2K: er way!

squish303: well then, i would like to present to you my proof

IggY2K: ok

squish303: but before we begin i would like to present to you
another theorem

IggY2K: ok

squish303: that the worse someone is at sports, the more
likely chance there is that the person is intelligent

IggY2K: ok

squish303: and that the more a person plays computer
games, the more intelligent that person is, because the
person must use computers more for computer games, and
computers are devices only used by intelligent people

IggY2K: ok so computer game players are bad at sports?

squish303: no no no, you're taking the inverse of my first
theorem, which is not equivalent to the theorem itself. you're
making the argument that a) computer game players are
inteligent based on my second theorem, which is correct,
and b) intelligent people are bad at sports, and therefore
computer game players are bad at sports. it's a valid logical
argument but faulty because the premise b) is not based on
my theorem "the worse someone is at sports, the more
intelligent they are," but the inverse which is "the more
intelligent someone is, the worse they are at sports." it's
perfectly possible for someone to be intelligent AND be
good at sports you see

squish303: i.e. i never said the inverse was a valid theorem

IggY2K: huh? But "The more intelligent someone is, the worse they
are in sports" implies that people with high intelligence are bad at
sports ...

IggY2K: So {High Intelligence} => {Bad at Sports}

squish303: but i never SAID "the more intelligent someone is,
the worse they are at sports"

squish303: i said "the worse someone is at sports, the more
intelligent they are"

IggY2K: oh ok

IggY2K: so someone who is bad at sports is necessarily good at
computer games, but not the other way around (necessarily)?

squish303: no no no, someone who is bad at sports is
necessarily INTELLIGENT, but not the other way around,
and someone who plays computer games is also necesarily
intelligent, but not the other way around.

IggY2K: oh ok so, {Bad at Sports} | {Plays Computer Games} =>

IggY2K: ?

squish303: yes!

IggY2K: ok

squish303: and the rest of my proof is very easy.

IggY2K: ok

squish303: i just present you two facts that i happen to know
about freddie prinze jr. one, that freddie prinze jr is bad at
sports. on an interview with rosie he said he played soccer
and he once got the ball into the other team's goal. and two,
that he likes video games; he said he played wing
commander in high school so when he was cast as the lead
roll in the wing commander movie he thought it was really

IggY2K: ok 1) Getting the ball into the other team's goal is the point
of soccer, and 2) Just b/c he played Wing Commander doesn't mean
he was good at it

IggY2K: I think we need to distinguish 'plays' computer games from
'plays computer games well'

squish303: sorry, he got the ball into his own teams goal

IggY2K: Like, I could push a few buttons but that doesn't mean I
'played' a computer game

IggY2K: ok well that still doesn't mean he is bad at sports, in general
- just soccer

squish303: well he said he was bad at sports damnit

squish303: and in order to have been really excited about
playing the wing commander role, he must have played the
games a lot, which he said he did in fact, and no human on
earth can play any game a LOT without getting at least a
little bit good at it
squish303 wants to directly connect.
squish303 cancels request; no connection was made.

IggY2K: well what if he's actually good at football (but just has
never played it)?

IggY2K: and the thing about playing games a lot doesn't necessarily
mean you can get good at it ... in fact, stupid people often play a
game over and over without getting good at it ...

squish303: okay, about the football, the point is that all we
need to do is establish that freddie is NOT as good at
sports as he is cute. that means we just have to show he is
NOT a super fanatical extremely good sports player. if he
got the ball into his own team's goal in any sport, then i think
we can safely say that he's smart (by the theorem) ENOUGH
to disprove your theorem

squish303: the same with video games. we're assuming
since he at least knows how to start a program and move a
mouse and use a keyboard, that he's at leas smart
ENOUGH to disprove your theorem

IggY2K: well even if that is true, you haven't really proven your
initial two theorems - you just conjectured them

squish303: as you have not proven your theorem, just
conjectured it

squish303: i guess this got us nowhere

IggY2K: right, but in order to disprove my theorem you have to
actually prove yours - I am not claiming my theorem is correct - it's
just an idea

IggY2K: :-)

squish303: but be honest, we both know that there is at least
one person on the planet who is very good looking but not
proportionally stupid, so it's silly of you to suggest your
theorem to begin with when we both know it doesn't hold

IggY2K: well that's true but that means you have a 1/6,000,000,000
chance of finding that person ...

squish303: ah, but really, we both know that human beings
are so dynamic that your equation probably holds for very
few of them

Previous message was not received by IggY2K because of
User IggY2K is not available.