|
Grex > Agora35 > #123: A quote from the second most famous fag hag. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
A quote from the second most famous fag hag.
| 
Oct 31 11:12 UTC 2000 |
Barbara says...
"We know what Bill Clinton and Al Gore did for America. They gave us the
greatest expansion of economic prosperity in our lifetime. And while
I'm not a gambler,this much I know?.you don't change the dice when
you're on a roll." Modern ecomomists figure it takes about five years
for any 'economic policy' to have inpact...Oh, where was the DJ a couple
years ago? Up or down? It was almost 12000 january of this year, now
the trend is downward - 10835.77 yesterday...lucky you if you listened
to Bob and a lot of others and bailed out.
It is quite clear from the quote that you are not a 'gambler'. In an
honest game nobody switches dice - unless it is for a loaded pair.
There is no such thing as a 'roll' "Dice" games are a really good
'house bet' as it is simply statistics, it is honest mathematics, it is
simple math that determines the outcome. "You don't change dice"....you
are a fool if you think changing dice has anything to do with a house
game one way or the other, You are far better off playing blackjack and
'card counting'. You are a fool, with lots of money, some little
tallent, and an opinion of yourself far in excess of what is warranted.
You have a big nose, a wide butt, and not even 'perfect pitch' not to
mention flat tits. Not to mention your employment 'off the books' of
'wetback' laborers at somewhat less than minimum wage. In short, your
mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
|
| 15 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 1 of 15:
|
Oct 31 12:28 UTC 2000 |
She spells it "Barbra."
|
md
|
|
response 2 of 15:
|
Oct 31 12:32 UTC 2000 |
(And, btw, whom would you rather hear her endorse, Gore, Nader or
Bush? She'll lose at *least* as many votes as she gains for anyone she
endorses. She might gain some of the middle-aged-woman-with-the-hanky-
up-her-sleeve crowd, but she loses the anyone-with-an-ounce-of-taste
crowd. I think she's part of an insidious Republican plot to embarrass
Gore.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 3 of 15:
|
Oct 31 17:05 UTC 2000 |
You are a fool, with lots of money, some little
tallent, and an opinion of yourself far in excess of what is warranted.
--
Sounds like the only difference between Beady and Barbra is the money.
;}
|
flem
|
|
response 4 of 15:
|
Oct 31 17:18 UTC 2000 |
I swear, at this rate I'm going to end up on M-net before the new millennium.
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 15:
|
Oct 31 17:39 UTC 2000 |
Why go there when it's coming here?
|
flem
|
|
response 6 of 15:
|
Oct 31 18:55 UTC 2000 |
'Cause it's not. This agora has been so monotonously, ponderously, even
obnoxiously Grexish that I'm beginning to long for another Summer '00. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 15:
|
Oct 31 19:28 UTC 2000 |
fuck you cocksucker
(howzat?)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 8 of 15:
|
Oct 31 22:37 UTC 2000 |
I, too tire of forgeting items that quickly fall into a two
person debate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 15:
|
Nov 1 04:57 UTC 2000 |
Ultimately I would think "randomness" (degrees of statistical
independence) in events arises from what we observe in quantum phenomena.
The Heisenberg uncertainly principle is well established, and anything
that leads to inherent unpredictability introduces a true statistical
element into processes. I believe that physicists accept that an
*absolute* unpredictability is associated with quantum phenomenon,
illustrated by the so-called non-locality experiments. Einstein struggled
with the "hidden values" alternative (that there is something
deterministic going on to cause quantum effects), but from what I have
read, "hidden values" have been essentially totally rejected.
Thermodynamic irreversibility follows from this, even at the macroscopic
level. Even if you knew all the positions and vector velocities of the
atoms in a gas in a box, you would *not* know what radiation is going to
do next, since every atom emits photons apparently with absolute quantum
unpredictability, and each photon is likewise captured (conveying
momentum) with similar total unpredictability.
Then, there is chaos (and related fractal phenomenon) that arise in
even absolutely determinisitic systems. In a way, chaos is a pseudo-random
process, as if one rounds to some finite precision, the chaos will
repeat. But in nature, *there is no rounding*.
So, the absolutely symmetric cow stands between the absolutely symmetric
piles of hay...while the sun moves, the wind blows aromas, flies buzz
around, birds tweet (iusymmetrically), etc. There are, in effect, an
infinite bases for a deterministic choice cow-system to choose one pile of
hay or the other by "free will", depending upon how the symmetric mind of
the summetric cow appreciates these unsymmetric inputs.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 15:
|
Nov 1 14:11 UTC 2000 |
Who wrote that?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 15:
|
Nov 1 16:47 UTC 2000 |
Me.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 15:
|
Nov 1 18:12 UTC 2000 |
(pssssst, Rane, wrong item!)
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 15:
|
Nov 1 20:23 UTC 2000 |
Re #7: Eat a bag of shitdicks.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 15:
|
Nov 1 20:34 UTC 2000 |
(Damn it - I keep doing that - getting carried so far away in one item I
land in another...)
|
flem
|
|
response 15 of 15:
|
Nov 1 21:18 UTC 2000 |
<lol> I knew I could count on all you hippie fags. ;) Here's to tofu and
granola!
|