Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Sarkozy: trolling in high heels

by Jerome a Paris Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 04:19:11 AM EST

Le Canard Enchainé raises an important question on its front page:

How did that picture of a 1.83 meter (6') George Bush and a 1.68 meter (5'6) Sarkozy get taken?

And these quotes from Chirac:


we already had one European leader in the service of US interests in Europe; we don't need a second one with Sarkozy


He has totally alinged himself with the USA. He's an atlantist and a communautarist. It's completely opposite to gaullism and even to French diplomatic tradition


Display:
I await Marek's diary on "Atlanticism" with some interest. It seems to me that there's a big debate to be had in there.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:46:31 AM EST
Options to consider:

  1. The White House press corps doctored the picture.
  2. Contrarily to what an MP present in that room says, Sarkozy is standing on something.
  3. Sarkoy lifted his toes up when the picture was taken, discretely, with no one noticing.

If 1) => we should worry about why the White House would be so keen on seeing him victorious.

If 2) or 3) => it only further proves that this man is unstable. also, why be ashamed of your size when you announce that you will become a grand president?

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:32:14 AM EST
2 or 3) => shades of the barber shop scene in The Great Dictator.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:35:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They could have caught it just as Bush was standing up. The angle of the back of his thighs (and I apologise for making you think of Bush's thighs) seems strange.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sarko doesn't look straight either, so you may be right. Sarko's photographer would have timed it perfectly (after a pre-arranged "get up slower than him" had been convened between Sarko and his photographer).

But the method used should not change the conclusion => why would he want to cheat about his size? I think this further confirms his insecurity and has got nothing to do with trying to steal symbolism for the grrrrrrrrreatness of Frrrrrrrrrrance.

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ps: I think 1m68 is 5"5 and not 5"6
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:38:30 AM EST
5,51181106 feet to be PN precise

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If that is  decimal, that would be over 5'6" as a foot has 12 inches...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 06:57:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Arg!
God do I hate non-decimal systems. I'm quitting computers as we speak.
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Base 12 is better than base 10.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Base 12 woud presumably extend to 3 ft to a yard etc? And as for the Swedish mile - huh pooofff! I am gone.

Could you also compare BTW with Base 8.

In fact I think a whole series of diaries on metrics is called for, including the Schrödinger's Cat paradox.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a comment.

In base 12, you can divide by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 without giving rise to infinity sequences of digits. In base 10, you trade the ability to divide by 5 for the ability to divide by 3, 6 and 9.

In base 60 (Babylonians anyone?) you can divide by 2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 without giving rise to infinite sequences.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Amazonian tribes in the Xingu area have a word for 'one', a word for 'two' and a word for 'heap'. The system allows great accuracy up to 4 (two + two). Their word for heap might be interchangeable with infinity - who knows? Speaking neither Koyapo, Tzukhamai nor Portuguese, I was unable to communicate with them at a verbal level.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ancient Greek had singular, dual and plural grammatical numbers. There are remnants of that in Latin, too, and in words like "both". Presumably Indo-European had a full-blown dual number. It also had an inanimate "gender" (whence "neutral") and masculine/feminine "animate" genders. For instance, in Latin trees are feminin [though with a masculin grammatical form] but fruits are neutral.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The dual grammatical number is very natural. Consider the innate ability to subitize, that is, identify small numbers without counting them.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Arabic has the same construct as ancient Greek, if I properly understand what you're describing.  Every noun has three forms: singular, dual and plural.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently... Wikipedia has a great article about it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that is a good article.  I honestly have trouble remembering most of the dual verb forms in MSA since I don't use them in day-to-day conversation.  (Not using them makes everything much easier.)  But the dual nouns we do use.

Oddly, the Wikipedia entry on grammatical number does not mention any living languages that use a dual number, while the entry you pointed out makes it clear that several do, at least to some extent.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:16:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia is not totally consistent, and bringing two related articles in line is usually more work than I feel I can spare, or I don't really have the topical expertise to feel confident about doing it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...there was anthropological study (which I of course read, went "Oh, that's interesting" and then discarded) which showed that in many cultures the symbol for one, two and three are the same - Roman numbers would be a nice example: I, II, III. When people hit four, however, they make up another symbol (IV). This is because the human brain apparently finds it hard to distinguish between III and IIII, whereas it has no troubles seeing the difference between II and III. In other words, you can count to three and it stops right there.
by Nomad on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 04:20:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, you can count to three and it stops right there.

No, you can subitize to three, and start counting from four.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 04:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Typical.
by Nomad on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:25:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A separate word, neurological and cognitive studies including some involving infants...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a separate word because it is a separate cognitive phenomenon. It is not counting, as it does not involve sequential attention. It is a (rather stunning) ability to perceive groups of two and three sensory stimuly without counting them.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 06:11:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The same ability works also for groups of 0 and 1 and 1 and 2, I presume? Looks like we're talking about the same thing, but I had no idea that the concept of counting is actually based on things as "sequential attention". Thanks. Nothing is mere. (What happened to your sig-line?!)
by Nomad on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 06:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I got pissed off. My sig line is influenced by my blogging.

From the wikipedia article I linked:

Clinical evidence supporting the view that subitizing and counting may involve functionally and anatomically distinct brain areas comes from patients with simultanagnosia, one of the key components of Balint's syndrome. Patients with this disorder suffer from an inability to perceive visual scenes properly, being unable to localize objects in space, either by looking at the objects, pointing to them, or by verbally reporting their position. Despite these dramatic symptoms, such patients are able to correctly recognize individual objects. Crucially, people with simultanagnosia are unable to enumerate objects outside the subitizing range, either failing to count certain objects, or alternatively counting the same object several times.

However, people with simultanagnosia have no difficulty enumerating objects within the subitizing range. The disorder is associated with bilateral damage to the parietal lobe, an area of the brain linked with spatial shifts of attention. These neuropsychological results are consistent with the view that the process of counting, but not that of subitizing, requires active shifts of attention.

The 'subitizing range' is 1-3 or 1-4. It is no coincidence that there are languages with Trial grammatical number in addition to singular, dual and plural.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 06:33:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This may well be why there's a tradition of counting by threes among shepherds. I always found it the easiest way of counting a flock, up to several hundred sheep. The eye simply recognizes groups of three with no need for counting. You count the groups (quickly, because the sheep don't stand there waiting for you to finish) and then you multiply your result by three.

Close enough for government work, as Sven says.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 08:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Neat.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 08:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In tests with pigeons AND humans, up to 7-8 units can be instantly visually recognized.

The tests were done with random large dots on paper. It is possible that this is due to pattern recognition, or there may be a very rapid counting process which appears 'instant'. There could also be deeper processes involved.

For instance, experience shows that 7 is the maximum number of people in a meeting that can act collaboratively - more than 7 and the meeting starts breaking into factions.

The ability to identify discrete objects is one of the key visual projection phenomena. In gestalt psychology is is called figure/ground separation, and relates also to concepts of signal to noise extraction of meaning.

The phenomenon of discreteness is one of the fundamental of our world experience.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 09:01:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's quote another bit of the wikipedia article I link...
As the derivation of the term "subitizing" suggests, the feeling associated with making a number judgment within the subitizing range is one of immediately being aware of the displayed elements. When the number of objects presented exceeds the subitizing range, this feeling is lost, and observers commonly report an impression of shifting their viewpoint around the display, until all the elements presented have been counted. The ability of observers to count the number of items within a display can be limited, either by the rapid presentation and subsequent masking of items, or by requiring observers to respond quickly. Both procedures have little, if any, effect on enumeration within the subitizing range. These techniques may restrict the ability of observers to count items by limiting the degree to which observers can shift their "zone of attention" successively to different elements within the display.

Atkinson, Campbell, and Francis. demonstrated that visual afterimages could be employed in order to achieve similar results. Using a flashgun to illuminate a line of white disks, they were able to generate intense afterimages in dark-adapted observers. Observers were required to verbally report how many disks had been presented, both at 10 s and at 60 s after the flashgun exposure. Observers reported being able to see all the disks presented for at least 10 s, and being able to perceive at least some of the disks after 60 s. Despite a long period of time to enumerate the number of disks presented, when the number of disks presented fell outside the subitizing range (i.e., 5 - 12 disks), observers made consistent enumeration errors in both the 10 s and 60 s conditions. In contrast, no errors occurred within the subitizing range (i.e., 1 - 4 disks), in either the 10 s or 60 s conditions. This result was replicated by Simon and Vaishnavi.



Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 09:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW Migu, do you recall the story I told about Gary Kasparov and the experiment we did with him?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 09:51:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but I know that professional chess players are able to remember chesspositions better than amateurs and that they use a different cognitive process. Amateurs try to remember the position of each piece, while professionals remember the relationships between the pieces.

Same thing with go, by the way, to the professional the stones are no longer individual entities, so it is easier for them to remember positions.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 09:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The filmed test we did was to cover a game in progress and then reveal it to him while he was wearing funky specs which enabled us to track exactly where his eye focus went - overlaid on the board.

His eyes went immediately to the King and hovered around it - never moving anywhere else across the board. For him, of course, the history of what had happened up to that point was inherent in the positions reached by the pieces.

A test with a random non-game in which the pieces were placed arbitrarily on the board caused his eyes to wildly roam back and forth across the whole board, But he knew almost instantly that the game was a fake.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 10:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read about that, you were actually involved in it?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 10:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I spent a wild few days in Germany with him and his entourage (which then included someone who turned out to be KGB) for a documentary that he commissioned ('Kasparov's Mates' was the jokey title).

I followed him into TV shows, exhibition games, visits to computer companies, on trains and mercs doing 230 down the autobahn. In between we shot him hanging out and interviews. He was then a very shy person - hard to get him to talk about himself. It was chess chess chess.

The only thing I didn't shoot was the ridiculous process by which his English manager tried to procure him a relaxing hooker in the posh hotel we were staying in. The manager of the hotel went berserk of course. As we crew pointed out to Gary in private - his manager was an idiot and these things are always handled by the barmen. Very understanding people. Sure enough a limo pulled up outside about an hour later.

It'll all be in my book one day...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Humans don't do Randomness very well.  Studies [no cite] people even when attempting to do a random marks on a page end-up making patterns.  Other studies comparing actual random visual images with people-produced "random" images prefer the latter.

This is a long way from Sarkozy so I guess we shouldn't have opened this particular box.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One reason for that is that a Poisson distribution of points "doesn't look very random", that is, it has more clusters than we expect. So, when people try to draw points at random, they actually tend to place them more regularly spaced than at random.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Silly, isn't it?

There are times when I think the Platonic archtype of Humanity was dropped on its head when but a mere babe.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Silly? I don't know. It's actually fascinating.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And to think that once upon a time my sig was:

If our brains were simple enough to understand, we'd be too stupid to know what a brain was

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For instance:


Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's something fishy about the Poisson Distribution...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 22nd, 2006 at 10:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What does the poor cat have to do with all this?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, it's the cat that we can't know about without ruining the measurement.....we were talking generally about metrics. Or?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is interesting, and I think sligthly different from counting. From my own experience, if we are 3-4 persons I never make mistakes in how many we are.

If we are seven persons I do not instantly know how many we are (unless I have previously counted), and I can make mistakes. However, I do know who is missing if someone is. So I do not know all pieces of the group but I know what the whole looks like and can quickly identify who is missing. Thinking about it when I count how many we are in a group (say that we are getting chairs, or buying movie-tickets) I usually break it down into subgroups of 2-4 persons and add ("lets see, X&Y is here, M,N&P are also here and me, that makes six").

If it is a group of say 15-20 people I don't immediately know who is missing, but by breaking it down in subgroups of no more then 8 (by gender, by what people do or otherwise) I can se who is missing in the different subgroups.

So I think those two phenomena are seperated but related.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 09:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obvious discrimination against the digit 7.
by Laurent GUERBY on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Down with rankism! Why should the 4th prime number play 4th fiddle to the first 3?

Unless you want to come up with 210 distinct symbols for digits...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:44:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
with infinite series of digits? The information is at least exact, if hard to write...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 09:02:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I personally prefer fractions, but here we're talking about positional number systems. I am saying there are reasons to prefer, say, the Babylonian sexagesimal system to the decimal one because the first is based on number theory and the second is based on the number of toes on our feet.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 09:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some people have twelve.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 03:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And as for the Swedish mile - huh pooofff! I am gone.

What is so scary with the Swedish mile?

The Swedish mile is a natural extension of the metric system. 1 Swedish mile = 10 kilometers.

Do we need such a unit? Yes, we do.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 08:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually I am a secret admirer of the Swedish mile, not least because it goaded me into discovering where the word mile actually came from.

A unit of distance called a mile was first used by the Romans and originally denoted a distance of 1,000 (double) steps (mille passuum in Latin)

mille grazia

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 03:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you have enough material in this thread to write a diary.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am a personal fan of base 6.
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That works.

base 8 is just base 2 in disguise. It's like calling 1,234,567 "base 1000" because we group digits three at a time. In fact, "base 8" is "base 1000" in base 2.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a fan of Moon base 11

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you guys remind me of musos arguing about time signatures!

where mathematics touch pulse...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 11:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Proof that all odd numbers are prime:

  1. prime
  2. prime
  3. prime
  4. prime
  5. bad data point
  6. prime
  7. prime

QED.
by asdf on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
has been dealing with this problem for decades. The problem they face is that some small people tend to have more of the narcissistic make up that being a star demands. Whether you would call it a Napoleon Complex or not. Does Tom Cruise have a complex? I think so.

The cowboy lead Audie Murphy (1924 - 1971) was the same size as our bête. They tried everything - they had him walking thru long dolly shots on a system of upraised planks. They dug shallow trenches for his taller  female co-stars. They made furniture to his scale. This apart from all the other simple camera position solutions.

Could the solution be a massive French rebuilding program, with upraised narrrow walkways throughout the corridors and arenas of French political power? In true Keynsian fashion, the immigrant unemployment problem could be solved.

It could have the added advantage for the Bëte, that all other politicians would be constantly tripping over his walkways, or adopting a new style of silly walk requiring lifting the knees high. This is the classic gait of all thieves.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:10:11 AM EST
I heard this about Alan Ladd. Namely, that all his shots were taken with him standing on a crate.

Sarkozy, btw (PN or die!!!) is 6 ft 6 (168 cm x 0.3937 = 66.1416" = 6 ft 6 in and a little squiggly bit on top).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Meaning, of course, o Grand Vizier, me duck, that you were right, in decimal terms.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 07:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have to Vizier this and point out that he is not a basketball player - you mean 5ft not 6ft eh?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Deep obeisance, o Vizier.

That'll teach me to do quick PN posts. The requisite time has to be taken. Oy vey.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 03:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PNing takes time because it is so infinitely detailed - like a Mondelbrot set, the closer you examine, the more detail appears.

But growing figs is a good way of learning the necessary patience.

Not giving a fig is another method that I personally use. Me duck ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 03:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The more I read the Canard's article, the funnier I find it. Mitterrand, for all his sins and qualities, was never ashamed of being short.

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:05:52 PM EST
"What can I do, M. D'Arvor? Should I let short people suffer? Are they not entitled to being tall, like everyone else? So let me tell you, and I do not mince my words, that short people have the right to be tall, and I will let no one shake my strong convictions about this, M. D'Arvor".

- N. Sarkozy

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And that's a real important picture. One of the most significant of the century, in my view.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 05:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He's standing on Bush's dog

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:09:49 PM EST
That made me laugh when I wrote it, especially imagining it with the picture above. I was expecting a flurry of fours. But no.

But - it takes all types, I suppose....

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 05:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have a 4

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 08:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We're talking invisible force are we?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 22nd, 2006 at 01:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I did give you a four, before.  Really & truly.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon Sep 25th, 2006 at 10:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]