heh

Rails missing; it's hard to keep track...

i just thought that was funny.

here's something else funny. friday, as i was eating with eric, i asked...
me: "so, essay question"
eric: "what?"
me: "explain boys... go!"
eric: "ok, um, let x be a boy... then for every boy there exists a partition of the set of girls into girls he's interested in and girls he's not"
me: "and i'm always in the 'not' set"
eric: "no, your mixing up your quantifiers... i said for every boy there exists a partition, not there exists a universal partition that works for every boy... corollary, for every girl, there is at least one boy for which that girl is in the 'good' part of the boy's partition of girls."
me: "i don't believe you"
eric: "ok, here's a better illustration.... all the stories you tell me about your family's birds? you seem to understand why frosty and poncho do what they do"
me: "yeah, they're fairly predictable" (frosty and poncho are my parents' talking parrots)
eric: "boys are like boy parrots. whenever you need someone to explain 'what does it mean when a boy does fill-in-the-blank', ask yourself instead 'what would it mean if frosty or poncho did this?'. i think the answers would be fairly accurate. they're like boys trapped in bird bodies... boys are like birds. the end."

any theories that top that? let the contest begin.