Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (204112)	4/25/2007 11:55:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793939

I don't think she was joking. if so why would she said this. Odd. That very statement was, for me, the clearest indicator that she WAS joking. Washing and reusing the square of toilet paper was by far the most ridiculous of all the "proposals." First of all, the paper would deteriorate given that toilet paper is designed to dissolve in water. Secondly, that single square has a single dab of urine on it. If you wanted to reuse it, it would make more sense to set it aside to dry for the next time. It wouldn't really need washing. Urine isn't all that hazardous a substance that it needs to be washed out. I don't suppose one would want to share used squares, but I don't see the harm in reusing one's own for, say, a day or two. Secondly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there was banter in that statement. "Whose judgment I trust implicitly," when applied to a loved one making a ridiculous statement, is almost surely intended as irony. I suppose it's possible that her brother was teasing her with her statement and she was too dim to recognize the irony, but the chance of there being two in the family who don't recognize the absurdity of washing that square has to be all but zero. I would assume both were in on the joke. Why do you think that statement supports the notion that it was a serious proposal?