- 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 - 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

2000

> 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

> roughly calculates to 21-28 at 2003, so keeping the same basic age

those

> 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

> bottom two years at the bottom and adding two on the top will

narrow

> slightly increase the numbers). Adding the requirement that they be

> Christian, the field narrows considerably (especially once we

> it to either reformed or that vague "open to learning" category).

> So there you have it. Scientific, statistical, accurate.

> - charlie brown - 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

2000

> 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

> roughly calculates to 21-28 at 2003, so keeping the same basic age

those

> 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

> bottom two years at the bottom and adding two on the top will

narrow

> slightly increase the numbers). Adding the requirement that they be

> Christian, the field narrows considerably (especially once we

> it to either reformed or that vague "open to learning" category).

> So there you have it. Scientific, statistical, accurate.

> - charlie brown