My face is plastered with the Golden Ratio. If you measure the distance from my chin to my eyes, and divide that by the distance between my pupils, you get phi. If it weren't for my wheelchair, and the colossal kidney dialysis machine I've got lashed to my bladder, I'd be beautiful.

You've got a nerve, Dovina. After all the misery your mindlessly verbose style has caused, you still insist on spuming out convoluted interpretations of what was, and always will be, a sentence that went totally tits-up. I can honestly say that in all my years of poemeranking I have never met anyone who went through life with as much prudish disgredard for the thoughts and feelings of others as you. You're a disgrace, and I don't want to look at you for another minute.

mices is cack. It's on the high street opposite the church thing between Sprint (formerly Harvey's) and The Mitre.

Handed in. Course finishes after my viva.

College internet account expired.

Two propositions x any y are equivalent if, and only if, x implies y AND y implies x.

I think it's obvious that B implies A, but not obvious that A implies B. Both hold in my opinion, though I can understand you disagreeing with the latter - since that was your original argument - but to disagree with the former seems a bit odd.

The case of B implies A: If B is true, then B must be possible. So A is true. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that something which is certain is also possible. Of course it's possible. To say it is possible is a weaker statement than saying it is certain, but it is nonetheless true.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. The argument boils down to the question of whether or not these two sentences are equivalent:

A. "It is possible that X is possible."
B. "X is possible."

Clearly B implies A - if B is true, then A must also be true. I also think A implies B, but you don't. My reasoning is that when you say something is possible, all you're saying is that you don't KNOW that it is false. If you say "It's possible that X is possible" then clearly you don't know that X is false, so you must think X is possible.

I have been thinking about this problem for some time, and that is the only sensible interpretation I can come up with. The terrible thing is that underneath all this fiddle-faddle is the royally obvious fact that all Dovina was trying to say was "A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding." Perhaps if she had had the common decency to say that in the first place, we all could have avoided a lot of silly bother. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what people think about this problem, viz. the equivalence of A and B.

Yes, yes, yes I considered that distinction shortly after posting the comment. In case A it is also the case that you don't know what that person means. So "misunderstanding someone" implies "not knowing what someone means". The converse is not necessarily true, because in case B you haven't understood anything at all, let alone misunderstood anything.

But Dovina says a better title would ease her "misunderstanding or failure to know what you mean". Think carefully about that. Dovina thinks it possible that she has misunderstood the poeme. It would be oafish for her to think that unless she had assigned some meaning to the words. This rules out the case in which Dovina had merely "failed to know what the poeme means without misunderstanding it".

Do you distinguish between "A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding" and "Maybe a more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding or failure to know what you mean"?

As far as I can see, the BBC source doesn't say anything about prositutes. Why don't you have a look at it?

Zodiac brought up the thing about yellow cards from some other source. A google search will reveal a number of sites quoting the yellow card thing. For example:

http://goasia.about.com/cs/singapore/l/aapic032301a.htm

Oh, and for the love of Christ, learn how to reply to comments properly.

Ahh... so it's physical cleanliness they care about, not moral cleanliness. Respectable Gentlemen are brutally scolded for leaving public lavatories in a state of mild dumplinghood; meanwhile, prostitutes roam the streets unhampered as the city basks in an unflushed dung-bowl of sleaze.

Is that why you deleted my comment? Or did you click on the X instead of the 'Reply'?

Wait... no.

Yes.

I also think it's really excellent that you distinguish between "A more descriptive title might have X" and "Maybe a more descriptive title might have X".

Aren't you proud of Singapore's prosperity?

"Once a colonial outpost, Singapore has developed into one of the world's most prosperous places - with glittering skyscrapers and a thriving port."

P.S. to reply to a comment, click on the green 'Reply' in the bottom right corner of the comment to which you are replying.