I know there's a rule against going OT too early, but when I post OT I like to do it in the least-OT way I can, by posting in a thread at that either topically or titularly is sort of relevant. And the title of this thread seems pretty relevant for this email chain between former Lehman Brothers' CEO Dick Fuld and and "Chief Strategy Officer" David Goldfarb, from less than two weeks prior to Lehman's bankrupcty filing.
After some borderline racist initial throat-clearing, the exchange moves on to gems like: "I agree we need some help, but the Bros always wins!!"
And the reply: "Absolutely, will and skill always win, and that be us!!!!"
As you read this email chain, be sure to keep in mind that these two gentlemen not only weren't locked in stocks and pillories in Times Square for the public to throw tomatoes at, no, instead they both remain dynastically wealthy free men.
I suppose infuriation with Wall Street is long overdetermined at this point, but Jesus Christ.
(This may already have been posted elsewhere. If so, sorry--I haven't kept up with everything recently.)
Here's my on-topic reply to heebie: I suppose infuriation with Wal-mart is long overdetermined at this point, but Jesus Christ.
Swearing about the order of greetings is probably a good sign that I should get back to work.
As the designated enforcer of the norm against going off-topic too early, I hereby grant an exception on the occasion of urple's glorious return.
I looked around for Mexican reactions. I had heard that one of the protesters of Walmart's Teotihuacan site was vigorously prosecuted, and that this prosecution would be remembered and play badly. I couldn't find this with Google, though.
Walmart has a Mexican bank, apparently poorly regulated because it's attached to the foreign subsidiary of a US company, so by US statute, there's no analogous US entity.
But holy shit, Juarez is still unimaginably horrible. A kid a week disappears in a town of under 2M people, and being a journalist looks to be very dangerous. I'm an athiest, and praying for peace seems like the best bet. Poor Mexico.
||
Air Armada Masses Near Iran April 27
and Spackerman! at the same place, tho Mar 16
Watch those polls in Ohio! And pray Iran doesn't misunderstand or misinterpret Obama's peace-loving conciliatory gestures, or something.
|>
9: bob, give it a rest, they've been at it since 2007 at least. And why does Ackerman leave the Navy's claims of “vastly superior American force” unchallenged? It's like there's a reverse Ledeen doctrine — every decade or two, the US needs to go into some crappy little country and suffer a humiliating defeat, just to better understand the concept of imperial overreach.
||
Somewhat on-topic for the corruption thread: I just busted my first cheating student.
|>
urple! I was just remarking that you haven't been commenting enough.
12: It's been deliberate! In the short time I've spent not commenting here, I've managed to get much more done at work, have noticeably more sex, and completely renovate a bathroom.
It's hasn't all been roses, though--I made a deliberate effort to coordinate milk and cereal purchases, which worked well on day 1 but thereafter failed spectactularly. I gave up after a month. It's just not worth it.
Any milk-related injuries to report?
Kill him with backed up sewer lines.
Wait, so does this mean you finally figured out what was wrong with your plumbing?
The sewer lines will do their work in their own time. No need to rush anything, just await the organic unfolding of the universe.
"this" being the bathroom renovation part.
21: Teo, teo, teo. Mysteries like that don't get resolved. The act of investigating them only causes them to grow more complex and multifaceted.
25: Well, yeah. I just want to hear the latest complications.
No, different bathroom. I'm afraid to touch that one.
The problem with the sewer line was apparently the wallpaper in the bathroom.
I'm also curious what effect Unfogged was having on urple's sex life, but I'm afraid I might not really want to know the answer.
To the OP: Let's roll all the laws back.
Sure, executives can refuse to pay bribes. But while they get old waiting for permits to clear, they will lose business. They may also get to watch less scrupulous competitors swoop in. Those rivals may not have to fear the possible legal consequences quite so much, if they hail from countries with more permissive standards.
28: the wallpaper in the *other* bathroom
33: Hey, this is urple we're talking about. Anything could be true in his world.
Maybe not commenting on Unfogged is "gateway sexual activity". What am I saying? Of course it is.
2016: Tennessee makes D&D classes mandatory.
I'm also curious what effect Unfogged was having on urple's sex life
Masturbating furiously while commenting, of course. Isn't that what everyone is doing?
Could you step away from the computer for a minute, lady?
36: 2017: Newly formed Nosflow Consulting Associates lands multi-million dollar contract with Tennessee Board of Education.
I'm genuinely disappointed that comment 1 generated zero traction.
I'm genuinely disappointed that comment 1 generated zero traction.
Ok, I'll bite. I followed the link, read the emails, and it just made me feel truly despondent. This is our ruling class? Seriously? I can't even get particularly angry at Fuld and Goldfarb--it's like that line from Trainspotting--they're just wankers, but us, we've let ourselves be dominated by wankers.
Good. I just want to know that I'm not the only one who thinks these guys are complete toolbags.
I'm also curious what effect Unfogged was having on urple's sex life, but I'm afraid I might not really want to know the answer.
This isn't exactly responsive, but also in the time I've recently spent not commenting here I've invented what I believe is a genuinely novel human sexual activity. Or at least one that has never before been depicted in pornography. Although I haven't actually searched the internets to confirm that point.
This is our ruling class?
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."
-- Vonnegut
Urple, people have had sex with dogs before. You're no Christopher Columbus.
Or at least one that has never before been depicted in pornography. Although I haven't actually searched the internets to confirm that point.
Remember Rule 34. Although I suggest not searching, so that you preserve the novelty value of your discovery.
And I have to admit, I'm curious.
I did not know that about Christopher Columbus.
I say we play twenty questions with Urple. Does it require an animal, a vegetable, or a mineral?
This isn't exactly responsive, but also in the time I've recently spent not commenting here I've invented what I believe is a genuinely novel human sexual activity.
Now get it depicted on a tattoo.
It's kind of the perfect troll.
I don't think we're doing a good job of creating a safe space for urple to share.
If the act is depicting a genuinely novel sexual activity in a tattoo, 53 could get complicated.
Actually, come to think, don't tell us. Just show up at Unfoggedecagon and host a seminar in the sex grotto. You can send out a notice ahead of time telling people what materials to bring (or I suppose you could sell course packs).
What?! Does it involve belly-buttons?
Actually, come to think, don't tell us.
Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
1) Pouring rancid milk over your naked partner
2) Having sex on the farm where you send a dog when it gets old so it can play all day and be happy. This has never been depicted in port because it doesn't fucking exist.
3) Tomato soup bukkake.
This has never been depicted in port because it doesn't fucking exist.
On the high seas, however, anything goes.
45 is even better than an actually responsive response would likely have been, so I'll take it.
If it involves light switches, I've got some bad news, urple.
You know, the last time I got involved in a conversation about abusing vitamins for sexual pleasure, it didn't end well. Now, I'm not saying that's what I think is going on, just attempting to set a baseline.
And yes, wheatgrass counts.
Oh my God you guys the clue is in the post title.
66 - why do you think that was a miss?
I'd bet with a little industriousness you could find that on the web, Halford.
Yeah, I don't think that qualifies as entirely novel. Unfortunately.
urple may perhaps have gone planking with only his penis as a support. That might qualify as relatively (if not entirely) novel depending at least on the choice of location.
I think this SMBC is more relevant than either of the ones in 47, but it doesn't shed a whole lot of light on the topic.
That might qualify as relatively (if not entirely) novel depending at least on the choice of location.
Actually, I would award serious points for careful BMI calibration, and even more if he could spin on it.
I hadn't really thought this through when I posted 45. Suffice to say I'm uncomfortable divulging more detail in polite company. (I mean, I could give vague hints, but that would just be unkind, since I'm really not comfortable going into a full explanation.) And I'm pretty sure posting as "Abe Lincoln" wouldn't cut it, anonymity-wise, at this point. So, sorry.
I can promise you're not missing anything important.
45 is the most frustrating comment in the history of the internet.
posting as "Abe Lincoln"
But intercrural sex isn't novel.
It's all a ruse. I believe this as much as I believe the nose crushed in the elevator story. Still, I like pretending to believe Urple's sweet lies.
72.1: What's that got to do with posting it here for God's sake?
I think 73 deduced Urple's new kink.
72: And there's a lot of fucking room between "vague hints" and a "full explanation".
And remember whatever it is, most of us are thinking of something much worse.
I'm pretty sure posting as "Abe Lincoln" wouldn't cut it, anonymity-wise, at this point.
Okay, but there are like forty other presidents to choose from.
If you use Grover Cleveland, specify which administration.
After this leadup the actual answer is inevitably going to be something boring, of course, so we probably are better off not knowing.
I'm guessing cotton candy coming out of every hole, pets included.
84 is true! (Not boring, exactly, but not fun either.) 72.2 was serious! Really.
Urple, think how much more fun your boring kink will be once everyone is cheering you on.
Heebie's been turned into a fly! Well done, urple.
Not boring, exactly, but not fun either.
Hott.
"Do you remember the time urple claimed to have invented A Genuinely Novel Human Sexual Activity and then wouldn't tell anyone about it?"
"Christ, what an asshole."
In the future, when blog-commenting is a revered and ancient genre, I hope urple will be properly appreciated as the great and subtle master of the art that he is.
I think everyone should post as a president, naming a kink they either have, or wish they had. Chaff the thread, and give cover.
Then people can guess.
94 was merely a dramatization of one possible future.
A Genuinely Novel Human Sexual Activity I'll Never Do Again
85: I'm guessing cotton candy coming out of every hole, pets included.
"Great act, what do you call yourselves?"
"The Confectioners."
Urple is a national treasure.
Not boring, exactly, but not fun either.
Describable by an adjective other than "fun" that has some sort of positive connotation?
Where I was actually originally hoping this would go when I posted 45 is that someone would point me to somewhere I could figure out if this it truly a novel idea or not, without my spending countless hours wading through the pornographic backwaters of the internet. Like, a big master index of human sexual activities. Or something. Someone's got to be developing an online catalogue of that, right? And then, if my idea wasn't in there, I could petition for its inclusion. And maybe I'd also get to officially name it, if that's how these things work?
Well, some of us have conference calls at 6:30 in the morning. I assume you lot will sort this out by then, even if urple continues to be totally indifferent to the comfort of women suffering from painful injuries.
Like, a big master index of human sexual activities.
Apo's browser history should do ti.
Cursory searches suggest I'm genuinely breaking new ground.
Are you using Google's exclusion operator correctly?
105: Now there's the killer app for data mining.
The egg/paper plate thread still has the ability to make me laugh until I cry when I re-read it, as I've just validated.
105: You could start here. Although, unless you're going to disappoint everyone, you might need to explore specialty journals, and helping with that requires slightly more input.
The kink involves breaking ground!
113: I think 66 covered that.
"Who just broke ground?"
105: If only there were a Mineshaft of some sort that you could Ask.
112: And I'm sure grumbles will offer totes discreet research assistance.
112: Hmm, the link in 112 has sections on Outer Space and Antarctica.
Recently, Pesavento (2000) revealed that pornographic films were available to cosmonauts on the space station Mir, which Russian space psychologists recommended viewing only in the later stages of an individual cosmonaut's flight. He also described the surprise that American astronaut Norman Thagard had when he found that these soft-core French and Italian erotic videos were there. Pesavento also described plans for a movie to be made on Mir, in which sexual activity would be filmed, for which the Russian Space Agency had already been paid millions of dollars for training the actors for their time in space. However, the filmmakers were not able to raise the additional millions needed to save the Mir from its planned deorbiting, which occurred at the end of March 2001.
One of my friends from grad school just spent a semester in Antarctica with her boyfriend, who was doing research there. I'm sure they had lots of sex.
Remember that scene in Pump Up The Volume where anarchy has arrived at the HS, and one of its harbingers is a group of kids running around with a 6 foot long inflatable penis? Where did they get that? Did one of them keep it in his locker just in case there was a pirate radio-inspired insurrection? Was it a science fair project? Did they loot it from the theater department? (Actually, given my experience of theater nerds, I'm sure some of them must've had a hand in it.)
118: That, or they just sat around watching old Charlie's Angels reruns dubbed into Spanish for Argentinean TV and eating penguin steaks.
I was wondering if someone would notice that (that document is awesome in all sorts of places, for different reasons). Pity the cold war killed our, ah, shot at Russian space-porn.
There is still time for hot action in the extreme south, though. But that might cause warming problems.
one of its harbingers is a group of kids running around with a 6 foot long inflatable penis? Where did they get that?
Because I go to Burning Man, I am pleased to note that this is yet another datapoint demonstrating that burners did not, in fact, invent the Giant Penis Riot.
(I'll have to watch the movie again to verify and document - don't actually remember that. But thank you for the assistance.)
Wait, so the genuinely new sexual activity isn't fun, even for the guy who invented it? What good is it, then?
105: My fetish is anything not in the book of fetishes.
My fetish, is everything in the fetish book, twice.
My fetish is large and carved from breadfruit wood.
I would just like to note that 124 and 125 were not me.
urple really is the best, isn't he?
Obviously, definitely, thoroughly yes.
105: My fetish is anything not in the book of fetishes.
As has been previously established, that comic sucked.
Now that just doesn't make any sense at all.
I think I see the paradox in the xkcd cartoon. It's like the following paradox. Imagine a list with one item
'everything not on this list'
And let us stipulate that a thing is on a list if it is referred to by an expression engraved on the list. Then, it seems, a thing will be on the list (referred to by the expression 'everything not on the list') iff it isn't on the list.
So, suppose that 'plants' isn't otherwise on the great list of fetishes and no other expression on the list refers to the Miles Juniper. 'Everything not on the great list of fetishes' will refer to the Miles Juniper iff it doesn't refer to the Miles Juniper.
106: Disappointing. It appears that the night shift totally lost focus.
We were experimenting and will report back shortly.
have noticeably more sex
Noticeable by the neighbours?
121: If you're interested (and even if you're not) there has been a porn flick shot on an airplane doing parabolic arcs to provide brief periods of free fall. The idea of shooting a porn flick on the Vomit Comet (not the NASA one, mind you) seems kind of absurd to me, but diff'rent strokes and all.
I thought I had invented a genuinely novel sexual activity once, but then later I realized that it's just the way I do it that is special. Take heart, urple; I'm sure you do what you do in a very urple way.
And let us stipulate that a thing is on a list if it is referred to by an expression engraved on the list
I just don't think that that's the right way to think about lists in this case. It works with sets because sets are extensional; I don't see why we should think the same about lists.
Well, Munroe could have said that the fetish was for things that don't fall under the intension of any item on the list, but that would have been pedantic. Either version, I think, gets at the spirit of the cartoon.
I was just thinking the other day about what a safe, non-judgmental space for sharing Unfogged has become. It really would be my first choice for revealing any novel developments in my life or behavior.
The idea of shooting a porn flick on the Vomit Comet (not the NASA one, mind you)
There's a non-NASA one?
142: You seem to be hung up on the idea that the list itself, considered as a finished product, is paradoxical or rendered paradoxical by the two problematic answers. But it's the project to make the list comprehensive that is confounded by Gödel's and Cantor's answers.
Implicitly, saying "I will make a comprehensive list of things with attribute X" is saying "I will list every member of the set S={x:x has attribute X}". It is defining the desired list as the list of the members of a set.
The list, considered as a project yet to be completed, refers to every member of the set. This is why to refer to the list (which does not yet exist, of course) is to refer to the set, indirectly.
I suppose they might better have said "each of the things" rather than "everything."
Note that Gödel's answer poses no paradox whatsoever, if the list already contained all possible fetishes, since then it merely means he has none.
Fetishes are like prime numbers. If you keep looking, you'll find another one.
There's a non-NASA one?
For about $5000 per flight, yes. http://www.gozerog.com/
146: But it's the project to make the list comprehensive that is confounded by Gödel's and Cantor's answers.
I don't see why that's right. Gödel has an intensional fetish.
Imagine that you just wanted to make a list of the fetishes of the Gödel family, and Kurt Gödel's fetish is: he gets off on whatever it is that Charlie Chaplin gets off on. Do you, then, have to put on your list the list of things that Chaplin gets off on? No, you don't; you just need to put, under the heading "Kurt", "things that Chaplin gets off on". (This is convenient because after all they can change over time—this way you don't have to revise your list.)
AFAICT, in doing that, you've made your list of all the fetishes of the Gödel family, even though "women's shoes" (and it's well known that Chaplin had a shoe fetish) isn't on it (not being the fetish of any other Gödel), and women's shoes have the attribute: Kurt gets off on them. The list is comprehensive even though it doesn't mention that.
I have to go to class but when I return I will continue demolishing you body and soul.
144, 152: See, just a bunch of nerds, nerding it out in their own incomprehensible ways.
152: That argument works better as a compsci major. ("Pointers are the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." -- not-Homer)
That Kurt gets off on Charlie's fetish today does not mean that he will tomorrow, nor that Charlie won't become adaptable in ways that are incompatible with Kurt's idiosyncrasies. Chaining does not work here.
That Kurt gets off on Charlie's fetish today does not mean that he will tomorrow, nor that Charlie won't become adaptable in ways that are incompatible with Kurt's idiosyncrasies. Chaining does not work here.
You mistake an extensional claim—Kurt's fetishes and Charlie's coincide—for an intensional claim: Kurt's fetish is doing Charlie-fetish-things. Kurt's idiosyncracy is to have Charlie's. That is: it's not the case that Kurt has something fully capturable by the description "women's shoe fetish". He gets off on women's shoes, not because of how they are in themselves, but because Charlie gets off on women's shoes because of how they are in themselves. (Kurt could also have had a fetish for men with Charlie's facial hair (so that we don't refer to fetishes on both sides), again construed not as something about Charlie's facial hair as it is now, but about Charlie, so that it persists through different configurations of Charlie's facial hair. This is what I meant, in the linked post, by describing the original supposedly problematic fetish as "one list-centric fetish": it's a single fetish about the list, not a compact way of referring to many independent fetishes.
155: I think I see the problem.
If you consider Kurt's description as a single fetish then there's no problem with the list - it just means Kurt's fetish no longer exists, now tgat it's on the list.
But the other way to treat it is as a compressed description of a list of fetishes, by means of a list-generating rule. So Kurt is saying, not that he has the "anything not on the list" fetish, but that to produce a list of his fetishes, start with a list of all conceivable fetishes, then exclude the ones in the book.
Again, somebody could fetishize all the things that don't fall under the fetishes on a list. This fetish is unproblematic when it's not on the list and generates a paradox when it is on the list (if the other fetishes don't fetishize everything).
Sure, I can agree that if you take Kurt's statement that way, there's a problem.
I follow your distinction between intension and extension, and will say no more, because if I have to recall any more Jerry Fodor theory from the chthonic depths into which I've submersed it, there might end up being an unfortunate eruption of lobster-frog-men and non euclidean geometry in downtown San Francisco. (Hated that class.)
Other than to say, Kurt, buddy, get some rest.
... I guess urple's not going to come back to this thread bearing lascivious cargo.
For about $5000 per flight, yes..
Oh sweet. I'm totally going to do that.
... I guess urple's not going to come back to this thread bearing lascivious cargo.
Trust me, it's not for lack of trying. I thought 96 was a good idea, and considered taking it upon myself just to post a variety of things under different presidential pseuds, to give myself cover. I spent real time on this!* But I failed, because I can't come up with anything else that's both genuinely novel and even remotely plausible, so I think the "real" President would be too obvious.
*Last night! When I should have been doing something better with my time! Damn you, unfogged! Damn you to hell!
Excellent. Obviously there's a desire (possibly a need) to share. So maybe we can all work a little more on the mechanics of doing that while satisfying the interests of all parties. Surely somewhere in the arsenal of procedural liberalism there is something up to the task.
It's like one of those Alice-and-Bob crypto exercises. Urple knows X. Everyone knows that urple and only urple knows X. No one else can positively identify X as X. Urple wants everyone to know X without knowing that they know X.
96 is a good solution. A better one would be for urple to tell Mutombo (who is the soul of discretion). We'd then all find out what X is the next time we each sex Mutombo.
Well, yes - by email or phone - because then the knowledge can start to be passed on immediately. If we have to wait for the next time that urple actually sexes Mutombo, that introduces a significant delay, because they're both busy men and syncing up their calendars will take time.
by email
Idea. Urple gets some generic-sounding email account and "spams" us all with a "SPICE UP YOUR SEX LIFE"-type email. Provides instant cover similar to 96. Everyone just needs to turn off their spam filters and carefully read everything which comes in for the next few weeks.
Do any of us really want to know? Given urple's track record with plumbing, home improvements, cooking etc, might we not be getting into Arthur Machen territory here?
It's nude frottage in the cowgirl position. No penetration, just contact of the external genitalia. That's my guess. It's on the fringes of the western sexual canon (so one may stumble upon it without ever hearing about it or seeing it) and lots of fun for all involved (so worth a mention).
What do I win?
170: lots of fun for all involved
That disqualifies it. Urple has specified that the activity involves little or no fun.
171: Dammit. OK, my second guess: Penis between her ear and shoulder/upper arm. Novel and no fun.
172: Family Guy was too close. Disqualified.
togolosh's suggestions are too vanilla by a factor of 10. This isn't something any sane person would want to do.
I'm figuring it involves a curtain rod. The situation arises due to the prior scene in which the neighbors complained about being able to see too much through the bedroom window. When you attempt to put up one of those larger curtain rods, with the dangly circlets that slide off one half of the rod so easily, it takes two to manage the putting-up. Shenanigans ensue.
174: Hmm... so if I recall correctly there must have been a significant amount of suction for the plunger to end up situated as it was in the toilet bowl.
This isn't something any sane person would want to do.
Skull fucking is totally a thing already, urple.
178: and don't you think I know that? This, however, is NEW.
Urple, just email me and I'll tell you if it's really new.
You know, Urple, you were wondering if you could get naming rights for the mystery activity. Nothing's stopping you from picking a name, and putting the definition up on Urban Dictionary. You wouldn't even have to tell us what the name is (although I don't think you could do better than Expiring Egg).
Okay, so urple is up in a tree, in an awkward position and somewhat stranded amongst the limbs, and the lady urple (it has not been established that there is a partner involved, but let's go with that) shoots, um, a water-pistol? rotten avocados? something, anyway, up at him in an attempt to be helpful somehow. urple gets off on this. Maybe it's a rope she's throwing up there, which urple keeps trying to grab while not becoming dislodged in an unfortunate way. All of which involves physical arrangements heretofore not experienced.
I almost fell for 181, but now I see that you can search for new entries on Urban Dictionary. So, uh, nice try.
Not the thing with the cup again?
Okay, so urple is up in a tree, in an awkward position and somewhat stranded amongst the limbs,
This one I've actually done.
If it's this, Standpipe beat you to it.
187: I know! It's hard to invent truly NEW things. They mostly just happen.