This is so depressing

I can find no reason not to accept this web page as fact.

http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html

The infor presented here has tested true in every situation for me so far...

At least I've gotten my share of tail, its still very depressing though.

 

A very interesting read and only mildly depressing
Also seemed very applicable for me anyway as I've been a few situations (mostly being screwed over ) that are explained here and the theories just put down in words my thoughts.

 

Very good read, and completely true. Insightful and entertaining.

This selection was one of my favorites-

"Criticism:In the section on ladder disparity you make reference to the 'hypotenuse.' The ladders however, are metaphorical constructs, and are not a defined distance apart from each other so this term is misleading.
Answer:It seems that way at first, but that's because you have failed to understand the topology of Ladder Space, which should of course should be so obvious that a formal proof is not required. Idiot."

 

LOL.

Yeah that is a good part of it.

Thank god for that hypoteneuse though. It seems like the only times I've gotten laid lately were due to some form of ladder disparity. (men/dogs/corpses)

But beggars can't be chosers you know?

 

interesting... and mostly true... how bout that...

 

heck........I bookmarked it (to show wifey)!!!

 

I'm going to read it now, and comment on it later.

 

You find it funny? How is it funny?

 

Okay, having read it, I have come to several conclusions.

1. It is not entirely serious. Check the FAQ-like part.

2. By no means does it encompass every aspect of human relationships. It seems to be based mainly upon the author's own experiences, and that of people he knows, anecdotes, etc etc etc.

3. He is by no means qualified to write such a piece. A Bachelor of Computer Science does not make you a relationship expert.

4. He's only 27, at most.

5. The theory itself is a little too simplistic. There are, however, grains of truths/semi-truths in there, or at least, conventional wisdom.

6. It's heavily based on stereotypes.

As a result, I'm going to ignore it's suggestions.

 

I guess it could be untrue under some circumstances, and I know the guy is underqualified when it comes to what pieces of paper he has hanging on his office wall, but still, its pretty hard to argue against his theories. I'm not arguing that its totally complete, but Jar what do you think he left out if it is overly simplistic like you said?

 

This is the basis of his whole theory - everyone wants sex. I'd call that an oversimplified look at human relations. I can't say what he left out, because I'm just as unqualified as he is, but I do know that his theory is not complete.

 

how was his thoery incomplete: women want sex as much as men!?!