or possibly a tube of epoxy to keep the cards together permanently, a few armed friends/sycophants to keep watch on the house of cards, perhaps a few mentally unbalanced people to kidnap or assasinate Person B's friends and family, some Marketing and PR men to drum up public support for the existance of the house of cards and make people think that it's good and deserves to be there, and on and on and on... couldn't we all just get along? clint barnett lord of the cosmos emily carr institute On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Murray Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:46:56 +0100, Matts Kallioniemi wrote:
At 17:12 1996-11-07 -0800, jim bell wrote:
Simple analogy: Suppose you put two people into a room with a deck of playing cards and a table, instructing "Person A" to build a house-of-cards, and telling "Person B" to stop him from achieving his goal. Who do you think will win? Obviously, the latter will win: It's vastly easier to knock such a structure down than to build it in the first place, and all "Person B" has to do is occasionally take a whack at the structure.
What if Person A is better armed? Could that change the outcome?
What if person A has a pack of chewing gum?
mhayes@infomatch.com
It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip