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

Finally

Expand Messages
  • thebishopsdoom
    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
    Message 1 of 3 , May 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Dan Fraas
      This was funny. However I found the restriction to women in the developed world unfortunate. Some of the best women live in developing countries. Maybe he
      Message 2 of 3 , May 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        This was funny. However I found the restriction to women in "the
        developed world" unfortunate. Some of the best women live in
        developing countries. Maybe he needs to travel more, like me.

        Riley
        --- 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
      • thebishopsdoom
        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
        Message 3 of 3 , 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
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.