not so fast...

In honour of Matt's blogging anniversary, I will proceed to beat him at his own game. I've narrowed my selection of numerous guffaw-inducing posts down to just a couple. The first is a theorem I divised last Valentine's day. I was single at the time and observed the world at a safe distance. In any case, hilarity ensued.
The second is actually an email I wrote recently (don't tell me it doesn't count, becuase I will fight you. It counts because I said so and it's funny.) I was attempting to give some advice to someone [I will give you a hint...Matt] regarding their fantasy sports basketball team, with which they may or not be in love. Hard to say. In any case, my advice is airtight just like my theorem. I hope that you *rotfl* while/after perusing both!


love theorem...
In the spirit of Valentine's Day, what follows is my dissertation on why people tend to hook up less in the winter. I have no scientific or factual evidence to support this claim, merely a set of logical and well-observed suppositions. I am sure that upon critically thinking through them, and hitching a ride on my train of thought, you'll come to be of the same opinion. If not, well, I'm smarter than you anyway, so just take my word(s) for it.

OK, so, you'd think that it would make more sense for more hookups to occur in the winter when people are cold and seeking heat from one another. Arguably (at least in terms of a Kingston winter) jackets, coats, scarves, hats, Uggs, longjohns, hoodies, or any other manner of insulation, are all inadequate. We gravitate towards other people to preserve some semblance of comfort during our frigid existence. However, i posit that this is only the case up to a point. That point is reached upon the experience of any sort of precipitation, wind, or combination of the two (and once again, given that it's a Kingston winter, you are likely to get the latter, involving snow, rain and hail).

Thus far: P = Precipitation W= wind.

The experience of said combination causes SF, or Squinty Face. Squinty Face is the result of trying to shelter ones eyes from the onslaught of the various forms of P, in tandem with the gale force of W. It involves the eyelashes and lids coming together to form the smallest of clefts through which to see. I contend that some people will close their eyes entirely, but I do not address this asinine phenomenon within the confines of this theorem. In conjuction with the affected eyes, the top lip of an individual tends to rise above the teeth into a sneer of sorts. The nose also wrinkles, which causes the cheeks to bunch. All elements combine into the seemingly permanent cold-weather expression that I refer to as Squinty Face.

Due to the fact that absolutely no one is attractive (and therefore undesireable or "U") when sporting the aforedescribed (TM) expression, I have derived the following equation:

(P)(W)^SF = U

An individual's degree of U is directly corelative to SF, which is directly corelative to P and W, which is an absolute truth of the geographic location of Kingston and surrounding area (and I suspect, most of Canada and the American midwest).

There you have it. This is why I have heard more people lamenting the lack of a valentine today, than the sound of lovers cooing into one another's ears. (I suppose if I could hear the latter, it would beg the question as to why I was standing so close, or why the lovers were cooing so loudly...showoffs...i hate PDAs...but I digress)

I think you will see that this theorem is in fact, airtight. The evidence to support it is insurmountable. Thusly, I challenge anyone to send me, or post a link to, a picture of someone with SF that is attractive. SF is a serious winter affliction not to be taken lightly, however, looking on the bright side - summer is just around the corner, and even if you're squinting into the sun, at least you're showing a little more skin. *Brrrow*.

Happy VD to everyone,

CAS


helpful hints and tricky tips
I was reading through the sports pages this morning, and I thought I would help you out a little bit, in case you haven't had time to keep up with your F-sports pools. Unlikely, I know, but sometimes someone else's vision can really clear things up for you. These suggestions might just rocket you out of your current position (even if it's first) and put you in the stratosphere of winning - untouchable by anyone.

Here goes. These are some folks I think you might want to consider for your teams, and why:

Mardy Collins: I have no idea what his stats are like, but he is suspended for 6 games for a scrap with the Nuggets. I know he won't get you any points sitting on the bench right now, but think long term - when he gets back, he'll surely be the baddest 'MC' around!

Nene: also suspended, but just for one game. This is peanuts, and I'm pretty sure it's probably becuase of his name, lucky guy! One name = one game. You might want a player on your squad who can pretty much get away with being a little dirty! Get those fists up, son!

Steve Nash: Even if it's just for posterity, you are going to want to have the only white guy EVER who (will probably) be voted MVP thrice. That's crazy, man. Get on it. Plus, TJ Ford says he's "smart and crafty" if that doesn't say ringing endorsement, i don't know what does.

Gilbert Arenas: THe man scored SIXTY POINTS! THat's ridiculous. Against Kobe Bryant, no less. I bet you all the arenas in the world couldn't hold his talent *cymbal crash* and he's obviously pretty good at drawing fouls; always an asset

Jason Kidd: only men accomplish what this guy does. he recorded his EIGHTY FIRST career triple-double last night, and though that might make your coffee pretty gross, it's delicious on the court.


I don't even know if you have the right guys in that 5 to start them all...I will guess not. However, these guys should be so good, that they could theoretically play anywhere. Think about it. It just might be your chance for greatness.


That's it, folks! Thanks for thinking I'm awesome.

C-horse.