Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	14-Jul-04/1:04 PM
What you should be apologising for is this appallingly stupid conversation, not your utter failure of a life. But thanks anyway!
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	14-Jul-04/11:31 AM
Does that mean you're comfortable with the fact that you've made a somewhat greasy return to poemeranker? Will people think you lack integrity for posting something after saying you would never post again? Do you get round that because you're a strong, independent person who doesn't let the opinions of others stand in his way?
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	14-Jul-04/9:11 AM
If the only thing that matters to you is doing a good job, why did you have to bring disgrace on your self, on your institution, and on Poemeranker, by pretending to be a Professor of Psychology, when in actual fact you were only an Instructor of Psychology. Instructor? Rubbish! When you retire, are you going to become a full-time playwright?
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	13-Jul-04/5:14 PM
Do you resent the fact that younger, less experienced Instructors have the same rank as you?
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	13-Jul-04/7:23 AM
I think it basically sums up your mind that you think the above was the wittiest and wisest possible reply. You have failed, Sir.
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	12-Jul-04/5:30 PM
A man is arguing with his wife. The screams and taunts, hurled back and forth between the two, echo through through the quiet streets. Eventually the man has had enough, throws some clothes into a night-bag and storms out of the house. Just as he is about to leave, he realises he desperately needs to relieve his bowels. He goes to the outhouse. He strides in, and, still angry, slams the door behind him. Unfortunately, the force of the slam overbalances the precarious structure, and the outhouse crashes over with the man inside. After telling his wife he's never coming back, he now has no choice but to scuttle pathetically back into the house, hopelessly embrowned and covered in paper. This is very much how I see your return.
Re: Zin/Enough/Things/Squeeze/Flow by gregsamsa222	12-Jul-04/4:22 PM
I like the way you've crammed several poemes into one submission. It allows the reader to sort of rank your entire life in one go. -6-
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	12-Jul-04/3:51 PM
Of course I cannot raise your dunce rank. Any more than dougsoderstrom can lower it. How dare he accuse me of dunce inflation? How dare he!
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	12-Jul-04/12:55 PM
Was it the spiral of depression caused by your demotion from Professor to Instructor which led to your shame-faced return to poemeranker?
Re: a comment on A Girl’s Climax by Dovina	12-Jul-04/9:37 AM
Men are harvesting extra nutrients in case they have to go to war. Women are just lazy.
Re: a comment on Brando's Dead (slight reprise) by ?-Dave_Mysterious-?	12-Jul-04/5:17 AM
You should have just used the pair (D, H), and avoided all the unnecessary remarks about which doors are empty, making the proofe easier to follow. You also barely explained the use of Bayes' theorem. I have made a more readable version for my own benefit. An element of the probability space is a pair (D, H) where D and H are elements of {A, B, C}. D tells you which door has the prize. H tells you which door the host opens. For example, the pair (C, B) describes the situation in which door C has the prize and the host opened door B. You initially choose door C. It clearly has a 1 in 3 chance of containing the prize. Now the host may open either A or B with equal likelihood, making P(C, A) = P(C, B) = 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6. Choosing C rules out (A, C) and (B, C). Since before any doors are opened all doors as just as likely to contain the prize, P(C, A) + P(C, B) = P(A, B) = P(B, A) = 1/3 = 2/6. The probability space is therefore: State --------- Probability (A, B) -------- (2/6) (B, A) -------- (2/6) (C, A) -------- (1/6) (C, B) -------- (1/6) The host then opens door B. (This rules out (C, A) and (B, A)). The probability now that the prize is behind C can be found using Bayes' Theorem: P(prize is behind C | host opens B) = P(prize is behind C & host opens B) / P(host opens B) = P((C, B) / (P(C, B) + P(A, B)) = (1/6) / (1/6 + 2/6) = 1/3 Therefore by sticking you have only a 1/3 chance of winning the prize. Therefore by switching to A you have a 2/3 chance of winning. This can be further shown by finding the chance that the prize is behind A using Bayes' theorem: P(prize is behind A | host opens B) = P(prize is behind A & host opens B) / P(host opens B) = P((A, B) / (P(C, B) + P(A, B)) = (2/6) / (1/6 + 2/6) = 2/3
Re: a comment on Brando's Dead (slight reprise) by ?-Dave_Mysterious-?	12-Jul-04/4:22 AM
Yes, the correct answer is that you should switch. Opening the empty door cannot increase the probability that your first door was the right door, because you can always open an empty door from the other two, no matter what door you chose. Your last point about having no information as to which door is correct isn't right. You are offered a choice between door A and door C, but the fact that the host opened door B actually teaches you something about door A because it rules out the case in which A is empty and B has the prize, leaving the cases in which both A and B are empty, or A has the prize and B is empty. This idea is formalised in the following analysis: An element of the probability space is a 4-tuple (W, X, Y, Z) where W,X,Y are elements of {E, P} and Z is an element of {A, B}. The first three (W, X, Y) tell you the state of the three doors (either empty E, or with prize P). Z tells you which door the host chose - either A, or B. For example, the 4-tuple (E, E, P, B) Describes the situation in which door A is empty, door B is empty, door C has the prize, and door B was chosen by the host. The probability space is given in the following table: State--------------- Probability (E, E, P, A)-------- (1/3)*(1/2) = (1/6) (E, E, P, B)-------- (1/3)*(1/2) = (1/6) (E, P, E, A)-------- (1/3) (P, E, E, B)-------- (1/3) The probability that the prize is in C given that the host opened B is obtained using Bayes' Theorem, and is: (1/6)/(1/6 + 1/3) = 1/3 The probability that the prize is in A, given that the host opened B is: (1/3)/(1/6 + 1/3) = 2/3 Had the host chosen his door at random, and then revealed that it happened to be empty, the choice would indeed be 50:50 so it would no difference.
Re: Vows by QuirkyWonder	12-Jul-04/4:21 AM
"Nothing is forever Because forever always ends" I am imagining the look of quiet satisfaction on your face when you came up with that sodden fuckmuffin, and frantically tightening a vise on my remaining teste to take away the discomfort.
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	11-Jul-04/5:26 PM
In what sense have I set myself up as the allmighty judge of others? By expressing my judgment? Is that not what you have just done? Or was it by expressing a judgment that did not meet with your approval?
Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	11-Jul-04/4:20 PM
"It's best to seek truth even if it hurts" To say "It is best to do X" can only make sense if it means "In order to achieve some goal Y, it is best to do X". Your answer "It is best to seek truth even if it hurts" cannot be verified unless you also answer the question: "What am I trying to achieve?" This is an "unasked question", and therefore, by the very standards you are trying to promote, you are a dunce of the first class.
Re: Brando's Dead (slight reprise) by ?-Dave_Mysterious-?	11-Jul-04/3:53 PM
A gameshow host presents you with a choice of 3 doors: A, B and C. Behind one of the doors is a prize. Behind the other two doors is nothing. You pick door C, but don't open it. The host, who is standing behind the doors and can therefore see what they contain, then says he will reveal an empty door from the two you did not choose. He opens door B and you see that it is empty. You are now offered the choice of sticking with door C, or switching to door A. Should you: (i) Switch? (ii) Stick? (iii)Or doesn't it matter? [5 marks]
Re: a comment on A Child Once More by Quarton	9-Jul-04/1:59 PM
Yes. You sound skeptical, though. I'll admit I haven't always been the best team player, often spending long periods of time indoors and away from other children. But it was through studying footballers, and crustaceans, that I learnt about the importance of cooperation and mutual understanding. For example, large prawn colonies in the southern pacific have been known to stay together for hundreds of generations, spanning periods of over fifty years. Large teams of marine biologists who specialize in prawns have spent a good deal of time researching their social interactions.
Re: a comment on A Child Once More by Quarton	9-Jul-04/1:07 AM
Childhood was a difficult time for me. I was frequently snubbed and tossed aside by my peers. In desperation, I turned to the Lord for guidance. He told me to hold my head up high and keep praying. During the long hours of Bible study, I developed a fascination for crustaceans and watching football. It was at a football match that I first learnt about the values of teamwork and a steadfast commitment to excellence. Pretty soon I was able to apply these qualities to my everyday life, furthering my understanding of crustaceans and their habitats. That night I didn't sleep, but stayed up praying to Christ thanking Him for sharing His wisdom at what was a difficult time in my life. The rest, as they say, is history.
Re: a comment on Distance by wilco	8-Jul-04/3:08 PM
Today I have uttered the following sentences which, I believe, have never been uttered before. But the ideas aren't new, are they? I'm sure they've been expressed countless times before, but in different ways! "If they invented a stealth-cow, that could climb trees and dig burrows, would you consider eating it?" "If you could afford to employ a butler to wipe your bum, would you?" "What if he was really intelligent, but the only thing he couldn't understand was bums and the wiping of bums?" "So you'd let an intelligent wiper, who didn't understand bums or the wiping of bums, wipe your bum?" "Given the isolation boothe scenario, would you prefer a retard wiper or an intelligent wiper who couldn't comprehend bums or the wiping of bums?" "With an intelligent wiper who did not understand bums or the wiping of bums, you could discuss Important Matters Of The Towne whilst he wiped, provided those matters did not concern bums or the wiping of bums."
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	8-Jul-04/10:53 AM
Are they?