Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8537Re: Finally

Expand Messages
  • thebishopsdoom
    May 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In light of the earlier posted statistical study, I was struck with
      the possibility that some well-intentioned-but-otherwise-harmless
      person might raise up the addage (attributed to Thomas Huxley) that
      given sufficient time, anything improbable becomes possible, and even
      monkeys will randomly type out works of literature.
      So it may be that someone would wonder whether there may be hope for
      one if they should expect perhaps to live a little longer than most
      (say, a mere 500 or so years more), whether they may reasonably rely
      on time to be on their side in finding a suitable companion and
      beating out the odds on the chances of finding someone (per the
      previous statistical study - never mind finding someone who would
      marry a 437 year old). This all falls back on the reliability of
      Huxley's monkey theory.
      Well, it seems the preliminary results are in:

      http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2C953F94

      -the cupid mathematician of doom

      If the link doesn't work, try:
      http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/09/offbeat.britain.monkey.ap/

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, thebishopsdoom
      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Surfing the web Wedesday, I could hardly believe it. I stumbled
      > across The Answer.
      > The insight is amazing. Sheer brilliance. I can't believe I hadn't
      > figured it out on my own.
      > http://www.nothingisreal.com/girlfriend/main.html
      > Though I'm not quite yet ready to part with the "there must be
      > Something WrongTM with me" solution, the calculations are both
      > startling and irrefutable. The results may be slightly affected
      > depending on a slight adjustment in age requirements (18-25 at
      2000
      > roughly calculates to 21-28 at 2003, so keeping the same basic age
      > range and perhaps dropping a couple years at the bottom end and
      > adding a couple years potential at the top end would place more
      > stress in the lower population group represented in the demographic
      > information, so there may perhaps be a slight drop in the final
      > number in the calculations thereby - on the other hand, keeping
      those
      > bottom two years at the bottom and adding two on the top will
      > slightly increase the numbers). Adding the requirement that they be
      > Christian, the field narrows considerably (especially once we
      narrow
      > it to either reformed or that vague "open to learning" category).
      > So there you have it. Scientific, statistical, accurate.
      > - charlie brown
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic