The Alonso Theorem

47 replies to this topic

#1 Jamelon

Jamelon
• Member

• 390 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 23:40

The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

#2 Spunout

Spunout
• Member

• 12,351 posts
• Joined: April 01

Posted 27 April 2008 - 23:59

The difference in laptimes will be 0 tenths, as F1 cars donĀ“t even start without 20 engineers.

Congratulations for the dumbest post of the week

#3 Vegetableman

Vegetableman
• Member

• 197 posts
• Joined: April 07

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:09

I Think he's taking the piss...

Classic, Jamelon

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

#4 howardt

howardt
• Member

• 2,102 posts
• Joined: February 02

Posted 28 April 2008 - 08:20

The bit about "Driver X" made me think of Nanette Newman walking though a marquee laid out with dinner plates...

Nanette Newman: "New Alonso does all this washing-up and more, 60 percent more." "Alonso : six tenths better than the best of the rest"

#5 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,348 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 28 April 2008 - 08:26

Originally posted by howardt
The bit about "Driver X" made me think of Nanette Newman walking though a marquee laid out with dinner plates...

Nanette Newman: "New Alonso does all this washing-up and more, 60 percent more." "Alonso : six tenths better than the best of the rest"

"With new Fairy liquid, my career has lasted 60% longer..."

(Not The 9 O'Clock News sketch for those who remember)

#6 B.Verkiler

B.Verkiler
• Member

• 571 posts
• Joined: January 01

Posted 28 April 2008 - 10:33

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Well, X-Alo < 0 with X being Hamilton, was about 0 with X being Trulli, and now starts to tend towards 0 with Piquet. Given what Kovalainen is doing currently against Hamilton, it is not too hard neither to guess that KOV-ALO
But when X is Fisichella being nowhere near his standard level, then you are right.

#7 cathal

cathal
• Member

• 33 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 28 April 2008 - 13:28

Originally posted by B.Verkiler

Well, X-Alo < 0 with X being Hamilton, was about 0 with X being Trulli, and now starts to tend towards 0 with Piquet. Given what Kovalainen is doing currently against Hamilton, it is not too hard neither to guess that KOV-ALO
But when X is Fisichella being nowhere near his standard level, then you are right.

Nah, the theorem is right, your wrong

#8 thiscocks

thiscocks
• Member

• 1,047 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 28 April 2008 - 15:10

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

what?

#9 mursuka80

mursuka80
• Member

• 5,106 posts
• Joined: March 07

Posted 28 April 2008 - 16:30

im getting anoyed by this forum 70% of threads are driver bashing or they turn into driver bashing threads Mods theres delete button use it

#10 shaggy

shaggy
• Member

• 1,661 posts
• Joined: March 99

Posted 28 April 2008 - 16:44

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is better to have people think you are a fool rather than to open your mouth and erase all doubts

shaggy

#11 lukywill

lukywill
• Member

• 6,660 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 28 April 2008 - 16:46

Originally posted by shaggy

It is better to have people think you are a fool rather than to open your mouth and erase all doubts

shaggy

another candidate for the forum moderation.
get a life.

#12 Risil

Risil
• Member

• 16,124 posts
• Joined: February 07

Posted 28 April 2008 - 17:28

Originally posted by lukywill

another candidate for the forum moderation.
get a life.

Luky you would be the best moderator ever.

#13 tormave

tormave
• Member

• 1,022 posts
• Joined: January 02

Posted 28 April 2008 - 17:29

Originally posted by mursuka80
im getting anoyed by this forum 70% of threads are driver bashing or they turn into driver bashing threads Mods theres delete button use it

But at least this one is bashing - with style! My ignore list is already longer than the pre-season testing thread, but this one made me smile. Lighten up, dude

#14 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
• Member

• 9,393 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 28 April 2008 - 17:49

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Seem that not all here have a sense of humor.

#15 Scarletkatz

Scarletkatz
• New Member

• 16 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 28 April 2008 - 18:47

If it's a random sample there will be a normal distribution.

#16 Josta

Josta
• Member

• 2,237 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 28 April 2008 - 19:04

Originally posted by tormave

But at least this one is bashing - with style! My ignore list is already longer than the pre-season testing thread, but this one made me smile. Lighten up, dude

I never could see the point in the ignore list. Is it really such an afront to read something with which you disagree, or just think is nonsense? It is possible to ignore people without sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.

#17 noikeee

noikeee
• Member

• 10,339 posts
• Joined: February 06

Posted 28 April 2008 - 19:12

The Paranoik0 Theorem

- Take a joke about a driver
- Make people repeat it constantly for n months on a formula 1 forum
- Tell randomly the same joke again in seemingly smartass form

As n tends to infinity, funnyness(joke) converges stochastically to zero.

#18 WACKO

WACKO
• Member

• 2,293 posts
• Joined: June 03

Posted 28 April 2008 - 19:25

Very nice scientific approach for talking crap there my friend

#19 VoidNT

VoidNT
• Member

• 1,561 posts
• Joined: April 04

Posted 28 April 2008 - 19:43

Originally posted by Jamelon
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Discipuli Nostri Bardissimi Sunt!

• Member

• 7,447 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 28 April 2008 - 23:12

Originally posted by VoidNT

Discipuli Nostri Bardissimi Sunt!

quod est "bardissimi", caro Void?

• Member

• 7,447 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 28 April 2008 - 23:18

Originally posted by B.Verkiler

Well, X-Alo < 0 with X being Hamilton, was about 0 with X being Trulli, and now starts to tend towards 0 with Piquet. Given what Kovalainen is doing currently against Hamilton, it is not too hard neither to guess that KOV-ALO
But when X is Fisichella being nowhere near his standard level, then you are right.

you fell into his trap very nicely, dear Verkiler:

- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.

Your statement rather points to the fact that Hamilton indeed profited from Alonso developing his car. Now, with Alonso not developing his car anymore (he and Heikki have to develop now independently) the McLaren is falling behind.
On the contrary, Renault starts catching up. And this is indeed seen in Piquet catching up.

Jamelo did not point to Alonso the driver but Alonso the developer in his theorem...

DonĀ“t worry, I also didnĀ“t like math that much in school!

#22 tormave

tormave
• Member

• 1,022 posts
• Joined: January 02

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:08

Originally posted by Josta
I never could see the point in the ignore list. Is it really such an afront to read something with which you disagree, or just think is nonsense? It is possible to ignore people without sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.

Sorry for the off-topic response:

When there is a topic you are really interested in but 90% of bandwidth is taken by a group of fanboys typically debating something completely different, an ignore list gives you a view to the on-topic discussion that is actually possible to follow. When time is the scarce resource, ignore lists as well as spam filters are a good tool to get rid of posts that have no added value. I almost gave up this forum, but now it's mostly OK as I ignore all the angry teenagers whenever I spot them the first time.

#23 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
• Member

• 9,393 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 29 April 2008 - 13:11

Originally posted by tormave

Sorry for the off-topic response:

When there is a topic you are really interested in but 90% of bandwidth is taken by a group of fanboys typically debating something completely different, an ignore list gives you a view to the on-topic discussion that is actually possible to follow. When time is the scarce resource, ignore lists as well as spam filters are a good tool to get rid of posts that have no added value. I almost gave up this forum, but now it's mostly OK as I ignore all the angry teenagers whenever I spot them the first time.

That actually makes a lot of sense now.

I have always shied away from using the ignore list since I could see no reason for it's being, just show that I simply did not understand the tool.

#24 Welsh

Welsh
• Member

• 600 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 29 April 2008 - 14:43

lol "angry teenagers"

I like that.

even the first post is funny. Folks need to chill a bit more.

#25 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
• Member

• 4,327 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 29 April 2008 - 21:50

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

I thought that ALO got beaten in t=2008-1 by driver X (- 5 years F1 experience - 2WDC) in that same identical car

These Spanish fans... if only they could erase history!

#26 Josta

Josta
• Member

• 2,237 posts
• Joined: October 07

Posted 29 April 2008 - 22:14

Originally posted by tormave

Sorry for the off-topic response:

When there is a topic you are really interested in but 90% of bandwidth is taken by a group of fanboys typically debating something completely different, an ignore list gives you a view to the on-topic discussion that is actually possible to follow. When time is the scarce resource, ignore lists as well as spam filters are a good tool to get rid of posts that have no added value. I almost gave up this forum, but now it's mostly OK as I ignore all the angry teenagers whenever I spot them the first time.

I disagree, largely because I find the angry teenagers amusing. I like reading the antithesis to what I believe, often because I know that I can make them look stupid with simple logic. Each to their own though .

#27 MOOT

MOOT
• New Member

• 14 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 29 April 2008 - 22:39

Originally posted by Jamelon
The Alonso Theorem

- Take a random selection of F1 car, F1 driver (say driver "X") and track.
- Take another combination of these three elements with identical car, same track and Fernando Alonso.
- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.
- Take a random sample of n laptimes from each.

As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

So what type of convergence is this? convergence in probability, convergence in L_2, convergence in distribution, almost sure convergence?

#28 SlateGray

SlateGray
• Member

• 6,133 posts
• Joined: August 00

Posted 29 April 2008 - 23:27

17 + 0 + 2 < 10 + 10

#29 howardt

howardt
• Member

• 2,102 posts
• Joined: February 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 09:26

27 > Σ (2008)

#30 Gecko

Gecko
• Member

• 800 posts
• Joined: April 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 09:34

Originally posted by MOOT
So what type of convergence is this? convergence in probability, convergence in L_2, convergence in distribution, almost sure convergence?

It's a series, and I think he meant uniform convergence in z, where z is a complex Alonso personality variable. Uniform convergence is achieved for a disc of any radius that does not contain the Hamilton point.

#31 Lontano

Lontano
• Member

• 1,990 posts
• Joined: January 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 10:08

Originally posted by VoidNT

Discipuli Nostri Bardissimi Sunt!

tua mare mala burra est (that's all my latin)

#32 Jamelon

Jamelon
• Member

• 390 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:21

Originally posted by MOOT

So what type of convergence is this? convergence in probability, convergence in L_2, convergence in distribution, almost sure convergence?

Stochastic convergence and convergence in probability are the same thing. Please try harder than just googling "convergence" next time.

you fell into his trap very nicely, dear Verkiler:

- Allow both drivers to independently setup and develop the cars for an identical period of at least 4 months.

Your statement rather points to the fact that Hamilton indeed profited from Alonso developing his car. Now, with Alonso not developing his car anymore (he and Heikki have to develop now independently) the McLaren is falling behind.
On the contrary, Renault starts catching up. And this is indeed seen in Piquet catching up.

Jamelo did not point to Alonso the driver but Alonso the developer in his theorem...

Good intro for dummies, but The Theorem is very "compact" and there's a lot more than that in it. Bear in mind that it is not impossible that a random driver is as good as Alonso in terms of ability to develop/setup a car...yet the convergence holds for any driver.

The implication is that developing and driving skills are not independent variables, there is a negative correlation. Therefore the better a driver X is developing a car, the slower he will be in terms of raw speed. This has also been proven in a different paper by a team of neurologists and it's related to the effects of ageing and driving experience in these two variables.

The Theorem proves that Alonso is the exception to that rule, hence the assymptotic result relative to any other driver. He's someone special, perhaps not from this world...but I don't want to digress.

According to the paper published in the International Journal of Mathematical Motorsports:

-Let Kd be a measure of the raw speed of a driver X in a 1-10 scale.
-Let Ks be a measure of the set-up/developing ability of a driver X in a 1-10 scale.

-The sum of this two variables is always 10, i.e. Kd + Ks = 10, for any driver X. Kd and Ks are therefore negatively and perfectly correlated. The higer Kd is, the lower Ks will be and vice versa.
-The sum of this variables for driver Fernando Alonso has to be exactly twice as much, i.e. 20, so Kd = Ks = 10, in order to explain the convergence.

So, although unlikely, a driver can be as good as Alonso in terms of either driving or developing, but not both. However hard he tries, it the conditions of the theorem are met, he will be 3/5 sec slower in the long run.

Last year, Hamilton and Alonso were teammates, as you probably know. The condition of independent development is therefore violated and we shouldn't expect a convergence to 0.6 necessarily. If we assume their raw speed was similar, it means Hamilton's driving is a 10 and his developing skills are zero. So this season he's in trouble. If we think Hamilton was faster, then Alonso was impeded necessarily, as beating Alonso in terms of raw speed throughtout a whole season is a mathematical impossibility.

Fisichella on the other hand was significantly slower than Alonso driving the same car, therefore his developing skills must be quite good, perhaps a 10. So with both drivers being perfect developers it was only natural that Renault got a great car in 2005 and 2006.

The Alonso Theorem is a theory of everything.

#33 howardt

howardt
• Member

• 2,102 posts
• Joined: February 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:32

OMG the OP was serious !!

Originally posted by Jamelon
He's someone special, perhaps not from this world...

Fantastical fanatical.
Jamelon < sane

Δ (Alonso fanboyism) < 0
(i.e. these Fred headcases are getting worse)

#34 Chiara

Chiara
• Member

• 1,847 posts
• Joined: December 06

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:44

Here's a simple bit of mathematics for you (and it will have to be simple coming from my limited knowledge).

Alonso Theorum = too much time on one's hands and

#35 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
• Member

• 6,338 posts
• Joined: June 06

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:57

sin(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + .....

=> sin(x^2) = x^2 - x^6/3! + x^10/5! - x^14/7! + ......

=> hakkinen + newey > head^3 + newey ;)

#36 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
• Member

• 4,327 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 13:32

Originally posted by Jamelon

Stochastic convergence and convergence in probability are the same thing. Please try harder than just googling "convergence" next time.

Good intro for dummies, but The Theorem is very "compact" and there's a lot more than that in it. Bear in mind that it is not impossible that a random driver is as good as Alonso in terms of ability to develop/setup a car...yet the convergence holds for any driver.

The implication is that developing and driving skills are not independent variables, there is a negative correlation. Therefore the better a driver X is developing a car, the slower he will be in terms of raw speed. This has also been proven in a different paper by a team of neurologists and it's related to the effects of ageing and driving experience in these two variables.

The Theorem proves that Alonso is the exception to that rule, hence the assymptotic result relative to any other driver. He's someone special, perhaps not from this world...but I don't want to digress.

According to the paper published in the International Journal of Mathematical Motorsports:

-Let Kd be a measure of the raw speed of a driver X in a 1-10 scale.
-Let Ks be a measure of the set-up/developing ability of a driver X in a 1-10 scale.

-The sum of this two variables is always 10, i.e. Kd + Ks = 10, for any driver X. Kd and Ks are therefore negatively and perfectly correlated. The higer Kd is, the lower Ks will be and vice versa.
-The sum of this variables for driver Fernando Alonso has to be exactly twice as much, i.e. 20, so Kd = Ks = 10, in order to explain the convergence.

So, although unlikely, a driver can be as good as Alonso in terms of either driving or developing, but not both. However hard he tries, it the conditions of the theorem are met, he will be 3/5 sec slower in the long run.

Last year, Hamilton and Alonso were teammates, as you probably know. The condition of independent development is therefore violated and we shouldn't expect a convergence to 0.6 necessarily. If we assume their raw speed was similar, it means Hamilton's driving is a 10 and his developing skills are zero. So this season he's in trouble. If we think Hamilton was faster, then Alonso was impeded necessarily, as beating Alonso in terms of raw speed throughtout a whole season is a mathematical impossibility.

Fisichella on the other hand was significantly slower than Alonso driving the same car, therefore his developing skills must be quite good, perhaps a 10. So with both drivers being perfect developers it was only natural that Renault got a great car in 2005 and 2006.

The Alonso Theorem is a theory of everything.

OMG: you're really obsessed and are having plenty of time

#37 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,348 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:02

Originally posted by Jamelon

Good intro for dummies, but The Theorem is very "compact" and there's a lot more than that in it. Bear in mind that it is not impossible that a random driver is as good as Alonso in terms of ability to develop/setup a car...yet the convergence holds for any driver.

[snip]

The Alonso Theorem is a theory of everything.

#38 iuut

iuut
• New Member

• 15 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:06

Originally posted by Jamelon

Stochastic convergence and convergence in probability are the same thing. Please try harder than just googling "convergence" next time.

Stocastic convergence just means convergence of random variables. There are different modes of convergence for random variables. I have a Masters in Mathematics so I know what I am talking about. At least think before you act like a smart ass next time, kiddo.
http://www.ukimageho.../a9ce6b88c7.jpg

this is WOOT btw

#39 Scudetto

Scudetto
• Member

• 8,062 posts
• Joined: May 01

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:09

Originally posted by Jamelon
As n tends to infinity, the difference in the average laptimes converges stochastically to 0.6s, i.e. tends to X - ALO = +0.6s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Well, according to Pat Symonds, Renault's improvement is a mere 3/10ths thus far. So I guess either Alonso's been slacking or we haven't stretched n far enough yet.

#40 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,348 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:13

Originally posted by Scudetto

Well, according to Pat Symonds, Renault's improvement is a mere 3/10ths thus far. So I guess either Alonso's been slacking or we haven't stretched n far enough yet.

There isn't a temporal scale in this theorem so far. That could mean we need to wait another four races or another two months for the extra 0.3s or perhaps the improvement is logarithmic and take considerably longer?

#41 iuut

iuut
• New Member

• 15 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:21

Originally posted by Buttoneer
There isn't a temporal scale in this theorem so far. That could mean we need to wait another four races or another two months for the extra 0.3s or perhaps the improvement is logarithmic and take considerably longer?

Or it might be that OP is talking about of his ass and that the random variables never converge, which is most likely the case.

#42 Jamelon

Jamelon
• Member

• 390 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:26

Originally posted by Scudetto

Well, according to Pat Symonds, Renault's improvement is a mere 3/10ths thus far. So I guess either Alonso's been slacking or we haven't stretched n far enough yet.

That's not a meaningful comparison. The R28 would be 0.6s slower without Alonso according to the theorem, you can't prove that wrong.

WOOT

I didn't want to go into much detail but you're right . It's a convergence in probability, so also in distribution.

#43 iuut

iuut
• New Member

• 15 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:33

Well Jamelon, you've provided the theorem, could you now provide the proof.

You can't just add QED at the end lol

#44 Jamelon

Jamelon
• Member

• 390 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:58

I'm just a messenger. It does explain the facts though, so you won't be able to prove it wrong either.

#45 Rustygordon

Rustygordon
• Member

• 80 posts
• Joined: June 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:08

Renault gained 3 tenths on the opposition. So you could say the rest of the teams gained 3 tenths, renault gained 6 tenths.

#46 giddyup409

giddyup409
• Member

• 2,500 posts
• Joined: May 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:16

why stop there? renault gained .3s + fred .6s = total .9s isn't that why fred split the ferraris?

• Member

• 249 posts
• Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:58

Originally posted by giddyup409
why stop there? renault gained .3s + fred .6s = total .9s isn't that why fred split the ferraris?

If Renault didn't win in Barcelona is because Alonso is a very well educated driver and it's a lack of good manners winning in your own home. You have to leave the guests to win the race at home as a proof ofhospitality.

#48 tormave

tormave
• Member

• 1,022 posts
• Joined: January 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:01

Originally posted by Josta
I disagree, largely because I find the angry teenagers amusing. I like reading the antithesis to what I believe, often because I know that I can make them look stupid with simple logic. Each to their own though .

I don't know if this really is a thread that can have an off-topic discussion, but apologies anyway as there are no greek letters in this reply.

To each his own, I guess. My problem with you and other good folks who subscribe to this logic is that ignore list farmers such as myself either have to read these pointless posts quoted on your responses, or ignore you too. The other problem is that you are are really proving these people stupid to 95% of the readers, who knew it anyway. To these 5% dimwits themselves big words like "antithesis" and logic that goes against what they know in their hearts just doesn't compute.

So Josta, are you a part of the solution or a part of the problem? No need to reply, by the way... (ploink)