[ XXXV | Audio ]

[lunchpenalty]

I found something interesting in one of the books tucked in the back of the library. For once, I think this is something that would be pretty interesting for all of us to do. So I don't mind Haruhi is making me announce it on the network this time.

It basically goes like this: I'll read a short story from this book, and you as the audience decides

Comments

[freedomwires]

In my deduction of the story, they're all guilty to the point where no order is necessary.

[lunchpenalty]

They're all equally guilty?

[freedomwires]

Yes. Though this is in a rather existentialist point of view, it also provides the necessary logic to explain why they are all equally guilty.

Without the King, then there would be no Princess. Without the Princess, then obviously nothing would have attracted the Prince's attention. The Bull will only become a significant definite variable in the equation if it is in the given setting that the previously mentioned variables X (the King), Y (the Princess) and Z (the Prince) are already there.

[lunchpenalty]

[......]

And here I thought Kantarou had answered it logically.

[freedomwires]

The question you've posed to the public is one of those questions that can be answered in numerous points of view -- such as biologically or psychologically -- but none of which can provide a specific right answer.

[lunchpenalty]

Yeah, but it was just for fun. You didn't need to treat it like a life or death situation.

[freedomwires]

I didn't. I merely answered it in the manner that made the most sense. Whether or not it was a real given situation, or merely a hypothetical one on which case it is, my stand would have been the same.

[lunchpenalty]

[...]

I guess.

[freedomwires]

If you aren't prepared for "serious" answers, then do not ask "serious" questions.

[lunchpenalty]

As I said in the beginning, I just thought it would be interesting. I don't have a problem with serious answers; I just wasn't expecting one quite so serious.

[freedomwires]

It isn't interesting. It's too simple. Even if there are numerous ways of answering it logically, they all revolve around the same set of variables. It does not go beyond anything.

Then there lies your self-contradictory statement; you say you don't have a problem with "serious" answers, and yet you show discomfort at encountering them because you have already assumed all you would get were plain answers.

[lunchpenalty]

If I haven't slept through too many math classes, the total number of outcomes is 24, isn't it? I wouldn't say that's too restrictive.

There's a difference between taking it seriously and just over-analyzing it to death.

Strikes = do not exist.

[freedomwires]

It is. 24 is nothing compared to the uncountable infinity.

[...]

When nothing amuses you any longer, analyzing even the most basic of questions seems to be your only escape. And I'm sick of it.

[lunchpenalty]

Of course it isn't. Still, it's not too bad.

It's not like I'm here to provide entertainment for you, right? Considering it wasn't even my idea to post this on the network, I don't think I should take the blame for you being bored.

[freedomwires]

It is to me. It's countable. Definite. Rigid. Boring.

How conceited of you to assume I was blaming you when I said nor insinuated no such thing in the first place. If I would be blaming anybody for the lack of amusement in the plane of existence, it would be the scientists.

[lunchpenalty]

Most things are that way, aren't they?

I wouldn't say it's conceited. I just don't see why you would stoop to analyzing something so "simple," even if you were bored out of your mind.

Although, I agree about the scientists. Still, it's not like they're going to throw entertainment our way.