Are you wearing a lab coat? - (Jan/07/2011 )

pito on Fri Feb 25 19:15:55 2011 said:

ppfftt...but I don't use knives....just bare hands ....and I've no need for a psychologist...hmmm....but wait a minute...are you projecting YOUR need?

casandra on Fri Feb 25 19:35:32 2011 said:

Projecting my needs?
Eum, lets analyze this. According to you I project my needs when I write about psychologists? So this must be the same for you too, since its your theory and it must be a general theory, or its not correct.
Eum, if we use this analyzing method, it means that I dont need a psychologist (since you write: "I've no need for a psychologist" with I = you, thus me, pito) + that you need one, because you wrote: "are you projecting YOUR need?" with your = I (thus not my need, but casandra's need).

See how the projecting theory works here....

I like that theory.... , wich off course means in reality, that you like it (not me, since I becomes you and since you like it, it must be true, meaning you do need a psychologist and I don't)

Oh yes, very interessting psychology.

pito on Fri Feb 25 19:15:55 2011 said:

well, that's a no-brainer....you and your bugs and all your warped psychobabbling (see the above post)chased the hot girls away.......

casandra on Fri Feb 25 19:45:19 2011 said:

Eum, I see, but it brings up the next question: how come I haven't chased you away? Are you not hot then?


I mean, using standard logic:

Given:
- me + bugs = away are the hot girl
- you = girl
so the question is: you = hot girl or you =/= not girl?
answer:
- me = here
- you = here = not away
- hot girl = away
- not away =/= hot girl
- you =/= hot girl


or am I missing a certain extra condition here?

pito on Fri Feb 25 19:47:41 2011 said:

what a nice piece of deductive reasoning, pito....you put Sherlock Holmes to shame....unfortunately, some components are missing from your set of premises....let me show you my line of reasoning:

me = psychology minor;

psychology minor = super hot;

me = super hot;

super hot = already taken; cos as a corollary: all good ones are usually taken....

me = already taken;

and to take this further…..

you =/= psychology minor so it follows that

you =/= hot at all......

you =/= taken


and your argument that:

you = here
me = here, therefore
me =/= hot girl

is sooo non sequitor….. ...

casandra on Fri Feb 25 21:34:12 2011 said:

and what has allready taken to do with being hot? Or even more: it says nothing about why you are still here, knowing I am here and I cant be anywhere where hot girls are...
Or am I not here ? or am I you and thus talking to myself? Or maybe you are me thus I am super hot (according to your logic)? And if you are me, then wow you are really wacko!

Anyway, going back to what you state:
You say that usually the hot ones are taken, thus meaning: not all the hot ones...

there is a mistake made by you... some =/= all
So you see, there is an error in your reasoning.
me = super hot; super hot = already taken; cos as a corollary: all good ones are usually taken==> me = already taken is not correct! Not all super hot ones are taken... and you dont know if "me" is allready been taken, using this logic, unless you have the condition that me = taken, but then its a different story in the the subsequent steps in reasoning.

so: the fact that someone is allready taken (even if she is hot) still doesnt explain why she is still here while I am also here, since normally me is here = hot girls gone.. in this case: super hot girl, that is allready been taken...
So either you are not a hot girl or me =/= all hot girl gone....

it could be: me = some or most hot girls away
or you =/= hot girl
.... what would it be....
because how you said it: there cant be a hot girl where I am, it has to be one of the above... either you messed up (thus can still be a hot girl, or you didnt mess up about the me=hot girls away and you are not a hot girl then)

Or you could be very sneaky and all of a sudden tell us that hot girl =/= pretty,sexy, cute girl , but hot girl= girl with an infection, causing a rise in temperature ? But this would seem odd? Would all girl get a rise in temperature then when being near me?
(altough, maybe this could be due to the fact I have my friend bugs with me, that cause an infection in those girls?

So we still havent proofed you are (super) hot...

Or maybe the mistake we made is: me = scares off all the hot ones, but not all the super hot ones?

maybe the difference lies in the word "super"?


Oh this brings back nice memories of my courses "logic" and "reasoning" when studying...



Non sequitor, Quisquis latine dictum sit altum viditur?

BTW if a psychology minor = super hot, then a major in psychology = ?

well it sounds as if it's a clash of sink psychology civilisations here...
and pito: being hot or superhot, it's a matter of imagination (or knowledge ) and not equations...

BTW: if you want to know who's superhot and taken or not you should better buy some yellow press stuff...

hobglobin on Fri Feb 25 22:19:52 2011 said:

but my gosh, dr H...I was gonna post an even longer rebuttal....ppfftt...well, perhaps next time...I've to buy some tabloids first.......

casandra on Fri Feb 25 22:23:16 2011 said:

clash of sink psychology? I have nothing to comment on that, except:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w


About that being hot or superhot as it's a matter of imagination (or knowledge ) and not equations. I have to concur, it was awful proving casandra isnt hot.. its like they say: its always nicer imagining it then knowing it.

pito on Fri Feb 25 22:36:53 2011 said:

ink blots....very nice video

to add more colour and dimension (and better music):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emlJKhLZOh8

awful? I'd say impossible...and only a more logical, rational and humbler man would admit that......but to prove that casandra is crazy.....not really a complicated task.....you don't even need mathematical proofs for this.....nor a lot of imagination .......

hmmm... perhaps you can accept an argument from authority, pito? i.e. ME....and I assure you that I'm super hot.......