Tuesday, October 16, 2007

um-worthy?

From: paul*******@********.com (Contributor to The Josh & Lewis Blog)
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:03 AM

Um…


From: lewis.********@********.org
Sent Monday, October 15, 2007 11:03 AM

Why is this "um" worthy?Funny.


From: paul*******@********.com (Contributor to The Josh & Lewis Blog)
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:15 AM

Lewis, I was referring to the fact that Jan is hot. I feel it was um worthy.


From: lewis.********@********.org
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:17 AM

I've just never had hotness brought to my attention via "um?"

like. . .um? totally hot? idk? looks like it. um?

and "um" worthy? I don't really know what that means


From: paul*******@********.com (Contributor to The Josh & Lewis Blog)
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:20 AM

You're the one that asked if it was "um" worthy… so you should know what that means Lewis.

Thanks.


From: josh.********@********.org
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:35 AM

Lewis,

Don't you understand the rules of hotness?

Section 1.1 states that if a woman is declared as being "subjectively hot," a man may declare to his friends that he believes she is hot. He needn't precede the statement with "I feel" or "I believe" if the woman might not be universally hot, but may reside somewhere on a threshold of hotness, for which it is possible for her to eventually be accepted among a group of men as being hot. (see the "Pam Beesly Syndrome"). If a woman resides below the threshold level, see Section 1.2.

Section 1.2 states that if a woman is declared to be "subjectively hot," meaning that many men would be in disagreement about her hotness, the man must use "I feel" or "I believe" statements as predecessors toward the hotness statement. This suggests that the owner of the statement realizes that a chick might not be hot to everyone, but he, in fact, develops a strong attraction for her based on numerous idiosyncracies and anamolous characteristics she possesses. This attraction develops despite the beliefs of the man's fellow piers.

Section 2.1 states that if a woman is declared to be "universally hot," it is not necessarily required that a man uses obvious statements, such as "She is quite beautiful" or "She is hot" or "That broad is smokin!" Occasionally, the visceral nature of the man will often provoke him to use such statements, and these are deemed as being appropriate and even commendable, but not necessarily required. In many cases, more discreet, simplified phrases like "wow," "um," and "BAM!" may be used. The idea behind this is that, because the woman is universally hot, men are able to communicate a universal message through minimal dialect. In this case, "um" means "um. . . ..jan is a babe." It is up to the recipient of the message (such as yourself Lewis) to understand that these phrases subtly suggest an ending phrase to the initial one-worded statement, and that the spoken words are not required.

If you are in disagreement with this, why don't you start dating men.



From: lewis.********@********.org
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:14 PM

being on a magazine cover precludes being demarcated as "universally hot". Therein lies the dispute. Jan cannot be regarded as universally hot and so the minimal dialect mentioned in section 2.1 does not apply. If there is not system for the acceptance of universal hotness than the door is wide open for strong-arming and and militant seizures of appointments meant to be left under democratic control. And if deciding the hotness of women isn't to be a democratic process then what would the process even mean and by extension, what would the title of 'hot' even be worth? These are priciples that you have overlooked in your dogmatic ascension to author of this incomplete and careless construction of hot legislature.


From: josh.********@********.org
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:42 PM

You are assuming I'm looking at this in black and white. Although it may be perceived that way, there is a varying degree of freedom that exists underneath these rules. The problem here is that you failed to see that, and immediately attempted to dismember my meticulously conceived laws with your atheist, free-will (and preposterous) notions. If everyone were exempt from these laws at all times, you'd see as many ugly chicks with good-looking guys as you see hot chicks with good-looking guys (according to statistics and an incredible large sample population. . .around 7 billion). The truth is, you don't see this. Hotness, for the most part, tends to pair with hotness. It is an inevitable truth in the human mind. . .not just mine either. . .objective analyses will support this. Keep reading:

You suggest that Jan is on the cover of a magazine, and this precludes entitlement of universal hotness. The issue here is that you've completely reversed the chronological order of events, skewing all empirical evidence. The correct order of events occurs with the initial acceptance of Jan being hot, thus rendering her fine figure on the front of a magazine. She was deemed by such a large population as being hot and therefore was photographed for the cover of Entertainment Weekly. This will even increase her universal hotness, as there are varying degrees of universal hotness (this refers to my varying degrees of freedom mentioned above. . .keep reading):

You claim my construction of these laws is nothing more than a "dogmatic ascension," yet these laws are universally, albeit implicitly accepted among heterosexual men. We live in a democratic society, but this doesn't mean we don't have laws. Without laws, we'd be a completely reckless society with no social norms. People would be eating each other. The fact is that we do have laws, but are still allotted freedom nonetheless. Constructing a set of hot laws doesn't devalue the term "hot" in any way because these laws still allow the users to classify. And why is this? Because men, for the most part, have a general understanding of what it means to be universally hot and universally not. Anyone who resides in the gray area of hotness can fluctuate levels because of personal beliefs. (ie the Pam Beesly Syndrome).

Here's what it comes down to. I constructed an elaborate set of laws which better describe a linear trend that was never understood, but had always existed since the dawn of time. Much like science, these are physical laws that have always been prevalent, and now I have unlocked these mysteries with a scientific, diplomatic, and judicial set of laws. . . .all within a morning's work at Medtronic. (Actually, i have believed this to be true long before today). You think this system has flaws and holes, but maybe it's because you have tried to exponentiate such simple data to agree with your biased attitude toward social customs and hot broads.


From: lewis.********@********.org
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:09 PM

I'm not done there, but I got slammed.I guess I'm mostly done, but not quite. Nice job josh.

No comments: