Teh Vague Thread

[Maister]

I've got two questions and I'm hoping y'all might have some answers.

1. You know, why did they set up so many DIFFERENT things the same way? I mean, if things are that different it seems they should have a really different sort of way to set it up, shouldn't they?

2. Ever since the Powers That Be went through that period of time where they made all those bad decisions, nothing has gone right. Why do you suppose they did that in the first place?


Also, I (and probably a number of other folks) am happy to provide answers to any vague questions you might have.

 

[zman]

Can you be more specific? :6:

 

[JNA]

Just what are you asking about anyway ? :-D :-$

Just so you know the answer is always 42.

 

[mike gurnee]

So why are calculator buttons in opposite positions than for phones?

 

[wahday]

Maister, you need to understand that the sameness of the differences essentially required a de facto common response. Otherwise, the sameness would have become so different as to be unmanageable.

As for those bad decisions, I think it was mostly a PR stunt. Since a lot of it happened in the '70s, they may have confused colloquial meanings of "bad" that actually mean "good" and therefore ushered in a whole slew of bad decisions that WERE bad, but not "bad." That's what happens when government tries to be hip...

 

[ofos]

What is this "vague" that you refer to?

In reply to question number one, I've been assured that while there may be appear to be many different things set up the same way that they are, in fact, set up differently although that may not be apparent to the untrained eye.

As for number two, those people spent a lot of time, much of it at their own expense, to ensure that all the solutions were equitable for everyone and, if you really appreciated that fact, you would not refer to them as "bad decisions".

I'm sure that others can provide affirmation and documentation as well.

 

[Maister]

Maister, you need to understand that the sameness of the differences essentially required a de facto common response. Otherwise, the sameness would have become so different as to be unmanageable.

I'm in general agreement with this BUT for the fact that in many instances the mode (not necessarily the mean and definitely not the average) of that quotient of difference hardly warrants the commonality found in the responses. This can be measured in a number of different ways. I'm sure you merely overlooked this consideration.

As for number two, those people spent a lot of time, much of it at their own expense, to ensure that all the solutions were equitable for everyone and, if you really appreciated that fact, you would not refer to them as "bad decisions".

Why does this response coming from you not surprise me one bit? I don't know how you could characterize some of their solutions as 'equitable' when you consider that the grossest injustices to those least able to deal with the situation resulting from those decisions far outweighs the rather meagre benefits offered to the numerically larger group of people who 'benefitted' (and I use that term loosely) from them.:-@ And another thing......what about all those times when things didn't work out the way they planned. I suppose you're going to tell us that all of those unforseen circumstances got in the way of success and there was no way they could reasonably have been anticipated? Quit while you're ahead.:r:

 

[mendelman]

I can't remember the name of that piece of entertainment with the guy from that show with the people who walked around and talked to each and wore clothing.

Do you know?

 

[Maister]

I can't remember the name of that piece of entertainment with the guy from that show with the people who walked around and talked to each and wore clothing.

Do you know?

Oh wait a minute I know this, it's on the tip of my tongue....wasn't that the same one where the other guys in that piece of entertainment were also involved in a very similar form of entertainment (and I'm pretty sure it involved some women who were clothed and talked too) what was that called.....oh this is killing me, it's right there. Maybe someone else can recall? I know exactly what you're talking about, though.

 

[Otis]

Why does this response coming from you not surprise me one bit? I don't know how you could characterize some of their solutions as 'equitable' when you consider that the grossest injustices to those least able to deal with the situation resulting from those decisions far outweighs the rather meagre benefits offered to the numerically larger group of people who 'benefitted' (and I use that term loosely) from them.:-@ And another thing......what about all those times when things didn't work out the way they planned. I suppose you're going to tell us that all of those unforseen circumstances got in the way of success and there was no way they could reasonably have been anticipated? Quit while you're ahead.:r:

This is exactly, more or less, the kind of thing you never, usually, see reported in the mainstream media.

 

[ofos]

And another thing......what about all those times when things didn't work out the way they planned. I suppose you're going to tell us that all of those unforseen circumstances got in the way of success and there was no way they could reasonably have been anticipated? Quit while you're ahead.:r:

Oh, that's easy for you to say! Especially knowing that you actively campaigned to promulgate insinuation of machiavellian malfeasance and misconduct to further deflect criticism from your own paltry efforts to promote a plethora of platitudinous and pusillanimous positions. For shame!

 

[JNA]

It is still kinda, lika, sorta you know.

 

[mendelman]

Oh wait a minute I know this, it's on the tip of my tongue....wasn't that the same one where the other guys in that piece of entertainment were also involved in a very similar form of entertainment (and I'm pretty sure it involved some women who were clothed and talked too) what was that called.....oh this is killing me, it's right there. Maybe someone else can recall? I know exactly what you're talking about, though.

It's coming to me, too...I think, but, this may be apocryphal, I think it involved more...you know...those people that delighted in those things with hinged edges and acid washed finishes.

Ya know, right?

 

[Maister]

Oh, that's easy for you to say! Especially knowing that you actively campaigned to promulgate insinuation of machiavellian malfeasance and misconduct to further deflect criticism from your own paltry efforts to promote a plethora of platitudinous and pusillanimous positions. For shame!

Would it be too much to ask you to stay on topic? You make it sound like this is all about ME. All the Byzantine machinations of your silopsisticly slanted stratagems only prove how desperately devoid of dunnage your dulcet and demeaning detractions truly are.

 

[wahday]

I can't remember the name of that piece of entertainment with the guy from that show with the people who walked around and talked to each and wore clothing.

Do you know?

The one starring Rory Calhoun standing and walking? No, I can't recall either...

And Maister, where did you learn your math, at an all-ages Canadian dance party!? The problem clearly requires that you invert the quotient as an integer of the mode's root. Its calculus, not rocket science! "Quotient of difference" indeed - feh!

 

[kjel]

Maybe.
Possibly.
Probably.

 

[otterpop]

Maister, you really need to ask that guy, you know, the guy with the hair and the big what'cha-ma-callit. He lives just down the street from that lady that does that thing. Anyway, it is kind of a big house with a bush in front. There is a car parked out front. I think it is red. Maybe.

Anyway, you should ask him. He has been a big help to me whenever I have had a question like yours. If he doesn't know, don't sweat it. Because I know that he knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy who can help you. He went to a fancy college back East somewhere, with ivy growing all over the buildings and lots of pretty coeds wearing emo glasses. You know the one I am talking about? If you don't know, ask that guy. He will remember or he will know a guy who knows.

 

[ofos]

Moi Off Topic?

Would it be too much to ask you to stay on topic? You make it sound like this is all about ME. All the Byzantine machinations of your silopsisticly slanted stratagems only prove how desperately devoid of dunnage your dulcet and demeaning detractions truly are.

Of all the accusations of topical vaguity, this is the most amorphous, blurred, dim, doubtful, fuzzy, generalized, hazy, ill-defined, imprecise, indefinite, indeterminate, indistinct, lax, loose, nebulous, obscure, shadowy, uncertain, unclear, unknown, unspecified, and woolly misrepresentation.

 

[Maister]

If you don't know, ask that guy. He will remember or he will know a guy who knows.

I owe you a debt of gratitude that I may or may not be able to ever repay depending on the degree of helpfulness your advice generally provided.

The problem clearly requires that you invert the quotient as an integer of the mode's root

Well duh. I, however, was referring only to those sets of real integers that are non-prime subsets of their own squared cotangents.

 

[Otis]

Well duh. I, however, was referring only to those sets of real integers that are non-prime subsets of their own squared cotangents.

You make otterpop's point for him with this statement. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Sheesh. The whole context of the thing demands this in a way.