Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by guy catelli, Jan 22, 2001.
[Edited by guy catelli on 01-31-2001 at 11:04 PM]
[Edited by guy catelli on 01-31-2001 at 11:03 PM]
why didn't the elephant use his trunk to get the mouse out?
[Edited by guy catelli on 01-31-2001 at 11:02 PM]
There's a mouse and an elephant who are best friends. Every day, they go off into the jungle with the mouse riding on top of the elephant, the elephant running thru the forrest andd the mouse yelling "faster, faster".
One day, on their run, the grounds opens up below the elphant.....IT"S AN ELEPHANT TRAP!!! As the poor elephant is falling, the mouse jumps off onto the edge of the hole.
The mouse looks down into the hole at his buddy the elephant. The elephant looks up at his buddy the mouse. The mouse sais "Come on, buddy, climb out, i know you can do it !" The elephant tries to climb, but the walls are too steep. Once again, the mouse yellls "Try harder ! I know you can do it!". The elephant tries again, to no avail.
SO, the mouse says "You wait here and I'll get help", and the elephant mutters under his breath )No shit, where am I going to go ?".
The mouse runs home, takes a big chain, and throws it in the trunk of his Ferrari. He speeds thru the jungle back to the spot where his buddy fell into the hole. He gets out, wraps one end of the chain around the bumper of the Ferrari and throw sthe other end to the elephant. He gets back in, guns the engine, and pulls his friend out of the elephant trap.
About a week later, they are going on thier morning run again, and get to the same spot. Since elephants never forget, the elephant remembers just in time about the hole, and stop short. The mouse is not prepared for this, so he tumbles off the elephant's back into the hole.
The elephant looks down into the hole at his buddy the mouse. The mouse looks up at his buddy the elephant. The elephant sais "Come on, buddy, climb out, i know you can do it !" The mouse tries to climb, but the walls are too steep. Once again, the elephant yellls "Try harder ! I know you can do it!". The mouse tries again, to no avail.
The elephant then goes over to the edge of the hole and squats down. The mouse grabs onto his dick, and then the elephant stands up, raising the mouse out of the hole to safety.
The moral of this story ? If you got a big dick, you don't need a Ferrari.
it's funny but in the last 3 4 months since i cracked up (some bitch backed over me in an expedition) *my* ferrari (really a caddy) i have been tooling around in a borrowed chevy. i have picked up many a strippers in that hunk a shit......cars aren't everything.
[Edited by guy catelli on 01-31-2001 at 11:01 PM]
See, no wonder I'm confused....thanks for clearing that up SB
You failed to use the famous "irony emoticon".
Row 3, column 6.
Ignore me, OETT, I'm just being ironic.
Since OETT doesn't like Algebra, I think I'll talk about analytic geometry (an invention of our good friend Descartes, whose less noble works I am sure Mr. Catelli has read).
If we consider two fixed points, x and y, in a Euclidian plane and take the loci of points, P, in which the difference between p in P to x and y is some constant, then we are talking about a hyperbola.
In rhetoric, we are being hyperbolic when we invoke a scenario that is so absurd that it is indeed impossible.
Without analytic geometry, Reiman (and hence Einstein) would not have been able to do his work, and we'd be unaware of just how much reality is curved.
But I'd point out that in conversations, rules of thumbs become skewed at the extremes. Just as a hyperbola looks more like a line (and hence nothing like a 'hyperbola') when you look far enough out, so does any rule of ethics become skewed when compared against an absurd, hyperbolic case.
So I called your statement rheotical because it attempts to question certain principles which I have espoused (and I note, rescinded) against the backdrop of something which is quite impossible.
As far as your refraining from showing me the same level of disdain that you seem to show from some of the others in these places, I'm not exactly sure why. I would conjecture that at some point I made a statement that happened to be consistant with both of our ethics and that you appreciated. The only ulterior motive I have on these boards is to learn more about myself and what the effects of participating in this hobby are. I've also found an unusually high (for the 'net) amount of decent conversation among the people that seem to post on this topic.
as an aside ...
i'm justcurious, justme, did you ever wonder why you have been spared my most tender attentions?
this question is neither 'rhetorical' nor facetious. at a particular point, without apparent ulterior motive, you acted in a way that has won you considerably more indulgence from my end than many of your postings would otherwise warrant.
and, precisely because you had no ulterior motive in doing so, you probably have no recollection of the incident to which i refer.
I hated word problems when I took Algebra....hate them as an adult :=)
Let's talk about the Clinton Pardons and his booty haul as he left the WH....
A lesson in logic:
The statement p -> q is logically equivilent to ~p v q qhich of course is true whenever p is false or q is true. Thus I know that the statement, If slinkybender likes to waste money then GC is a pain in the ass, is true without knowing anything about GC, since I do know that Slinkey doesn't like to waste money.
So your question: under the scenario I described is the providor obligated to pay? Can be answered by examining the truthe of the statement: if the scenario above occurs, the providor is not obligated to pay. Since the premise is always false, the statement must be true. So I agree that the following is true:
If your scenario occurs the providor is not obligated to pay.
Of course, this is a theoretical dodge. I could have just've easily proven that under your scenario the providor is obligated to pay, or that under your scenario I must definitely be witty and inventive.
But I submit that obvious rhetorical hypotheticals deserve obvious theoretical dodges.
I furthermore submit that rhetoric in general is barrier to co-operative intelligent discourse.
Allen - typing in a blowhard rant like this, just to have the machine tell me my password is wrong and that the words are cyber-dust in the wind is kinda disheartening.
[Edited by justme on 01-25-2001 at 12:49 PM]
question for wsb and justme ...
question for our visiting scholars on law and ethics, wsb and justme:
suppose Jane is an escort who charges $18,000 for what she advertises as a "one-day minimum". John pays the $18,000 fee, up-front.
at $750 per hour, John is expecting a 24-hour 'fuckarama'. Jane agrees. however, after the first 20 hours, she takes 15 minutes to 'freshen up' in the restroom of the hotel where they are staying.
Jane does not stay one minute over 24 hours. when he gets back to his office, John sends Jane a bill for $187.50 as compensation for his having been 'short-changed' by 15 minutes.
What is Jane's recourse, if any?
the site says the $18,000 is for "one day". can viagra be used for 24 hours in a row?
i would never pay 18 G's for anyone. if i *HAD* or intended to piss away that kind of cash, i'd take someone who would at least appreciate it a little bit more.........like a $1500 a night girl, and make a weekend out of it and show her a time she'd never forget. then throw in a 500% tip.
but then i'd never be able to show my face on these boards again without getting a "wooing your provider" thread shoved up my ass.
thanks but no thanks.
gee mr APM how come you haven't gotten around to making that (WYP) thread yet.
[Edited by Ozzy on 01-24-2001 at 11:00 PM]
Separate names with a comma.