for Wed. TEA TIME in L.A. (#35) REMINDER: 7-8PM Bronze
CORKBOARD for Wed. Tea Time in
L.A.(#35) REMINDER 7-8PM Bronze Time / 12-1AM
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:03
= = = TUE (5/1)
TEA TIME #35 INFO & LINKS = =
EOTD BtVS Episode Of The
Day: #118 6.18 - Entropy
Sonnet Of The Day: TO BE ANNOUNCED
(BEFORE TEA TIME)
verse in Shakespeare's form.
= GENERAL INFO & LINKS FOR NEW TEA TIME
PARTICIPANTS = = =
THIS IS NOT TEA
TIME. THIS IS THE CORKBOARD.
Corkboard for messages to forensicpopouri or
discussion before or
after Tea Time. And, yes,
do post comments, suggestions, insightful quotes,
REMINDER: Look for TEA TIME in
L.A. at the top of the Bronze
forums page at 7PM Bronze Time.
Tea Time lasts one hour.
CORKBOARD appears 3 hrs before Tea
Time (4 PM Bronze)
NEW TEA TIME
PARTICIPANTS SHOULD READ THESE:
SONNET SCHOOL FOR SLAYERS -
* WHY I POST IN
SHAKESPEAREAN SONNETS: (1) tid=48156 (2)
* TEA TIME FAQ &
* DESTINY (THE
PORTAL, THE ORACLE, AND YOU):
* YESTERDAY'S TEA TIME
FROM FORENSICPOPOURI (if any) will appear as 1st
END OF CORKBOARD #35
forensicpopouri - May 02, 2002, 4:07
CORKBOARD #36 is
up at -
Hi JNW ( I really do know how to spell
mutually, by the way )
prunehilda - May 02, 2002, 3:43
Although you sure
couldn't tell from my last post.
I'll try to
explain Nash's Theory as best I can but sometimes my
head starts to spin too. Simple games are a linear chain
of reasoning. Each player trys to look ahead to as many
possible outcomes as they can. Checkers is such an
example. Chess is another one although there are too
many permutations to perform in reality so each player
thinks a few moves ahead . In the end there is one
winner after a finite sequence of moves.
simultaneous game the players are moving at the same
time, unaware of their opponents moves but aware that
there are other players. The players are each thinking "
I think that that he thinks that I think ....". So each
player trys to figure out his own best outcome based on
what he thinks the other players are thinking. The
circle comes to equilibrium when each player plays his
own best strategy. This is not to say that equilibrium
will optimize everyones situation.
I'm sure a
mathematics professional could find all sorts of flaws
with my pathetic attempt to explain this theory but my
head just started to spin.
As to your final
question- I've been pursuing FPs identity for a while
now and have thought that I was close on a couple of
other occasions only to find out some fact that just
didn't jive with everything else. The internet is useful
but limited and sometimes I'm making huge leaps based on
coincidence. Again, the journey is the thing: the
destination is secondary. Would I tell all? Probably
not. This is just too much fun.
lawyer - May 02,
2002, 2:58 PM
How marvelous to see
you! As always you have managed to put in words what my
poor tired brain was unable to even grasp.
"cooperation and games", I agree that it has to be
mutually beneficial to truly work. Whatever is beyond
the Portal, may only be available for one; however,
without cooperation, none of us may make it anyway. To
use the simplistic pop-culture references that fit my
current intellectual state, it's the difference between
"Big Brother 1" (where the contestants remained loyal to
each other and tried to make all subsequent moves in
concert, perfectly knowing only one would win) and
Survivor #1 (the law of the jungle). I would also refer
to Camus v. Machiavel but that's a little out of my
I am one of those idealists
(or realists? I am still struggling with that) who
believe that a society/a group/a family cannot survive
without solidarity and caring as much for the destiny of
the person next to us as ours. Even if it fails, it
makes the whole experience so much more fulfilling. And
in the end, even if you lose, you actually "won" ... if
that makes any sense. Here, I would talk about Camus for
hours, but my last functioning brain cell is threatening
to go on strike (like the good French worker she is
<smile>). More on Camus later if any of you are
As for FP's identity, I think he has
given us many illuminating clues. But as JNW noted, what
would be the point? Would it distract us more than help
"our cause?" Like Dorothy, wouldn't we be ultimately
disappointed to find out who hides behind the curtain? I
am still struggling with that so all opinions are
A bit more prunehilda
JNW - May 02, 2002, 2:16
First, sorry for the
misspelling of your name -- please forgive. Next, just a
question. Given games and strategies, even if you did
know who FP really was, would you tell? Is there
incentive in that?
And prunehilda marvelously illustrates the
flexibility of language...
JNW - May 02, 2002, 2:14
Wow! Now where were
you when I was trying to parse this all out in my poor
brain?! Explain to me (please -- I'll definitely be
grateful!) the simulatneous and circular aspects of the
moves and the logic. As FP noted, the illustration in
the movie was not apt, but perhaps you could provide a
better example? As to nature -- I had intended a
different meaning -- as in the very nature of the theory
(is it cooperative?). But your take on my words strikes
me as an alternate path of particular interest. It
suggests FP might have been right about "the cooperative
nature of the Nash Equilibrium" in terms of actual
prunehilda - May 02, 2002, 1:53
Hi JNW. It's a
pleasure to meet you.
I see that you are discussing
game theory and I have to add my 2 cents worth. My
understanding is that games can be generally categorized
into three different types according to the outcomes and
with the understanding that all games share the common
feature of interdependence. There are zero sum games
where the interests of the players totally confict. Or
games can be mutally negative (harmful) or mutally
positive ( everyone gains something). I think the games
between men and women can fall into anyone of these
catagories but the important point here is that these
games are not played in neutral territory. The decisions
a game player makes is based on his or her
circumstances, history, intelligence, needs, etc. etc.
Nash's theory of equilibrium is based on
games where players are making simultaneous moves in a
logical circle. It really is an incomplete solution to
the problem of circular reasoning in this type of game
but it can be very useful in analyzing strategy.
As for cooperation in nature: it comes in the
form of a symbiotic relationship. The participants
(plants vs plants, animal vs plants or animals vs
amimals) have evolved to an arrangement that is mutally
Glow and SNL- I've got some ideas as
to FPs identity but no clue as to the purpose of TT.
Still working on it though. Keep FP talking!
now back to the essay at hand: What kinds of public
policies are most likely to improve a nation's economic
performance in the global economy?
And to the "C"
JNW - May 02, 2002, 1:29
Quite right! I'll look
for you in alternate rooms, though I'm afraid I might
not be much help yet. Had a thought on graffiti the
other day -- smack in the middle of other thoughts while
writing on topics vastly different. It materialized, an
inner voice cried out "That's it!" and then, POOF, it
was gone. I've a serviceable little creature searching
through the dusty file cabinets in my mind, but she's
way in the back right now, and I have no idea when
she'll be able to locate the disappeared file. Still,
I'll let you know if she succeeds.
FP, By the way...
JNW - May 02, 2002, 1:22
Since I'm reading
between your lines, perhaps I might suggest the same to
you ... You needn't shift your strategy <g>, but
of course you probably already know most ladies at
social functions (tea perhaps?) do employ strategic
behaviour. I have no platinum tea leaves to offer, but
perhaps I might interest you in some lovely peach
Dear "C-Team", dear FP
lawyer - May 02,
2002, 1:08 PM
JNW: Good point! I
truly believe that men and women just think differently.
For me the end result is not the objective; the process
itself is the true exciting challenge. (Oop, probably
not what FP would like to hear...) But talking about
stategy, we should probably all (glow, you, me,...)
sometime chat on the "C" thread to establish some kind
of concerted action before sonnet 154.
how nice to hear from you. Yes, I have paid some
attention to the latest clues... some letters written in
the sand, glass (again), the still mysterious
significance of Tea Leaves, Verschip's endless ramblings
about his "soul," Hollywood, accepting constraints...
You will, I am sure, have all the answers when you come
back! <hopeful smile>
Thank you again for your
concern. My intellectual abilities are slowly coming
back to normal...which is not necessarily good
FP: I had "hoped" you had forgotten about
my sonnet! <grin> I am waiting in fear (and slight
excitement) <Spike-like grin>.
JNW - May 02, 2002, 11:05
theorems, the subjects I barely squeaked by in college
because I never could stop wanting to know the "why?"
behind the equations... All right, (mumbling as my mind
spins), a question: but is Nash's Equilibrium
cooperative in nature? And if we're talking about game
strategy and gains and women and men, do the variables
and incentives shift? After all, what the men want and
view as a greater return may be very different from what
the women desire. As for bars -- ever notice that the
focus is always the women? The men focus on the women,
and the women focus on the women with the men, and all
competition revolves around ... women.
AND NOW IT'S THURSDAY IN SANTA MONICA
forensicpopouri - May 02, 2002, 3:24
mentioned Courtney Love . . .
. . . I will
mention (brag<g>) that Ms. Love's lips once
touched my left ear
and her hot breath . . . .
Well, she said something to me that
night Warren Beatty
was supposedly making noises
about running for President
and 200 journalists from
around the world had gathered to
note the event . . .
and Courtney was trying to talk to all of them.
. . . but I have no earthly idea what
Courtney said. (People tend to
think I'm a
journalist so she was probably just trying to make
that if I were a journalist I'd write something
nice about her by
molesting my ear
As for whether Ms. Love has been
Hollywoodized . . . in her case,
it might be the
other way around. <g>
AS FOR MORE
IMPORTANT THINGS . . . no one should think that I
forgotten the sonnet I will write about
Supernatural lawyer . . .
. . . it shall
be written . . . when the prophecy has been fulfilled.
Just thought I'd stop
glow - May 02, 2002, 2:19
I can't seem to stay
away. After work I come to the bronze and catch up on
what I've missed. First and foremost are the Tea Time
threads. FP's getting closer and closer to the 154 mark
and I haven't even chosen a topic yet for my sonnet.
eeeeek! Plus, I'm still wrestling with IP.
miss all of you too. <sad smile>
compatriot SNL, I know I can count on you to collect the
clues and relay them to me. I hope you're feeling
better. <sympathetic smile>
I'd like to
thank JNW for her lovely compliment last night. Blame my
wonky sleep deprived mind, but I can't remember for the
life of me what she said, yet I felt warm and fuzzy
inside. Also, I'd like to congratulate you on composing
verse in IP. I'm jealous, but in a good way.
Forensic Popouri thanks for the
added info on your person. Would you say you've been
hollywoodized? Courtney Love is a fine example of a
"star" who's been hollywoodized, don't you
A harem? <raised eyebrow> What's
this about a harem? LOL.
one, the only *glow*
Pondering . . . the fact that usually
only one woman shows up at Tea Time at at
forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 8:53
The Nash equilibrium
illustration in "A Beautiful Mind"
was fun . . . but
not a good illustration.
A male screenwriter came
up with it, of course . . .
and his male eyes came to
that distorted the whole idea of the
nature of the Nash equilibrium.
female screenwriter would have been more likely
come up with a more accurate illustration . . .
. . much more in keeping with Tea Time behavior
it was strategic). <g>
Of course, this is
all based on horrid stereotypes of
in competition v. cooperative situations . . .
. . which may or may not be true in any sense . .
. . . but likely are right on the money.
lawyer - May 01,
2002, 8:37 PM
Sorry I "abandoned"
you today! Meetings, clients calling, deadlines, briefs
to write... such was my "destiny" today. (sarcasm
warning) Despite what some people think <smile> I
do understand contraints!
By the way, I read the
sonnet you posted on the corkboard yesterday. Truly
As for me, I am still struggling with IP.
I am not sure I will ever be the good student FP
wants me to be. <sad smile> As pointed out before,
the fact that English is not my maternal language and
that I did not go to school in an English speaking
country (my mandatory readings growing up were
Beaudelaire, Racine, Verlaine and Zola, not
Shakespeare) is a major hurdle.
But reading your
verses is a true inspiration. Thank you then for joining
us. I hope you will find the new name you are looking
As for glow, my understanding is that she is
taking the week off from Tea Time but will be back next
week. She is much missed, I agree.
JNW - May 01, 2002, 8:11
I miss you already!
Hope you're both well and not too swamped with
JNW - May 01, 2002, 8:09
As for your excellent
sonnets and ending haiku, the lady retreats, for the
moment, to review her forces and
LINK TO TODAYS SONNETS (re Entropy)
ThePowersThatTea - May 01, 2002, 7:10
JNW - May 01, 2002, 4:25
Oh well done! And so
many smiles <she says, giving a smile of her own -- a
slightly lopsided tilt with best intentions>. I
should be working, but I can't resist a response. Of
course, I've read your argument for form & it's
sound -- sound as a drum. But, you must admit, you are
the authority here, and subversion of authority to
create new forms, well...it holds appeal. I'm not quite
to "I must create my own system or be enslaved by
another's," else I'd have flounced off rather than try
my hand at solid iambic. And the merit is true -- you're
right. But may not constraints of form be expanded and
still your goals be met? As for poetic attempts -- I'm
very flattered, but I should admit, what poetic nuances
there may have been were likely stolen. I tend to think
in amalgamations of others' words and I long ago
surrendered on the issue of authorial influence. Now
back to work! <smile>
Corkboard CORRECTION . . . Yes, this is
WEDNESDAY'S Corkboard <smile>
forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:15
NOTE TO "C" (and ALL) -- See verse by JNW
on previous CORKBOARD (#34) tid=91078
forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:12
then read my comment about Tea Leaves etc.
PROSE POSTCARDS FROM
forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:06
* TO JNW (and
all) REGARDING iambic pentameter . . . and more
Shakespearean sonnets . . . I've
said this before I'm sure <smile> . . . but I have
(culturally significant) reasons for
focusing (specifically) on posting in formal
Since JNW was quite poetic
today <serious smile> . . . I would like to remind
(yet one more time<smile>) to read my
four sonnet sequence WHY I POST IN RHETORICAL
. . . and note (particularly) my statement
that what my intent is not "poetry" proper . . .but
will not attempt here (there isn't time <smile) to
give a full essay explanation of what
this is (theoretically) to produce . . .
but it is primarily this value that I seek in investing
to this creative project.
BOTTOM LINE: <serious smile> I very much want all
of you to attempt to put
(Anya-like<smile>) thoughts into rhetorical
. . . before 154.
Now . . .I will devote the next
couple of hours to writing a 4 sonnet sequence about
(And will post link to it here . . .
Unless I fail. <smile>)
Until Tea Time . .
* P.S. If anyone saw Alison Krauss on
PBS recently (with her perfect hair and
dress. . .
and smile) . . . and know what she "normally "looks like
<g> . . . THEN you
will know what