wychwood: "I can't believe you just..." / "Wait, you know what? I can. I totally can." (SGA - McShep disbelief)
wychwood ([personal profile] wychwood) wrote in [personal profile] thefourthvine 2007-01-06 10:46 pm (UTC)

Me: But...okay, I get the concept, and yet. Well. Shouldn't the number of exclamation points be an intensifying rather than a mitigating factor?
BB: What?
Me: Because if you divide by the number of exclamation points, then that reduces the total number of cats. Whereas obviously more exclamation points should increase the total number of cats, and -
BB: Are you arguing the terms of an equation from a YouTube comedy clip?
Me, quietly: I just think it's important to be accurate, and that's obviously inaccurate, because -
BB, loudly: I said, are you arguing the terms of an equation from a YouTube comedy clip?
Me, very quietly: Possibly.
[There is a long silence.]
BB: Oh my god. Do you hear yourself?
[There is another long silence in which I reflect upon my life to date.]
Me: ...Maybe I need a hobby.


I would, you know, laugh at you, if I hadn't spent far too many hours of my life ranting about the "women = evil" equation, based on the fact that As Any Fule No, "time and money" would be "time + money" not "time * money" (what *do* they teach them in those schools?). And, also, any square root has the possibility of two solutions, one positive and one negative, so even if you accept the dubious multiplication, one could still argue that women would be *either* evil or the opposite of evil, namely, good.

*cough*

Sorry. Humorous maths pedants unite!

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org