... late at night.

The pier lights are attracting the baitfish, which in turn are attracting the bluefish and trout which you're there to catch.
The bluefish and trout have attracted what appears to be a 5-6' shark. Big ole son of a bitch- every 5 minutes or so, he rises and chases a blue.

You're fishing with relatively light tackle- if you hook into this shark, he'll either spool you if he turns back towards the ocean, or he'll break you off if he turns under the pier. Virtual certainty that you won't be able to land him with the gear you have on you... But man, that fucker just keeps rising and he's so tempting to cast at. They're really fun when you hook into them.

Do you:

A) Put on a bigger and brighter jig and cast at the shark, knowing that it's a very real possibility he will strike, but also knowing that you won't be able to land him. All you will get is the thrill of getting spooled or your rod bent in half.

B) Totally pointless. The blues and trout are biting well. Why bother casting at a fish that is totally out of your league? You're there to catch blues and trout, you're catching blues and trout- a lot of them- so why bother trying to catch a big shark that will only waste all of your line (good, expensive braided line) and result in no ultimate reward?

C) There is no third option.

D) According to C, there is no third option, but by creating C, you've created a third option. Is C a paradox?

E) Buy a bigger pole and catch the sonofabitch

Yes.

Not an option. Plenty of larger gauge rod/reels at home, but no time to go and get them.
It's now- with light tackle and a certainty that the only result will be an "experience", or just keep doing what you're doing- catching the blues and trout for tomorrows supper- and simply avoid the shark when he/she rises.

There is no paradox. Simply typing the letter C doesn't create an option C. For example, 'a cretin said all cretins are liars' is paradoxical. Also see "Russell's paradox", for additional information.

So: a third option that states there is no third option isn't paradoxical?

A real man jumps on the sharks back and wrestles/rides it the several hundred yards to shore. He would kill it by bashing the back of its head in with a rock. Then skin it with his bare hands and teeth. A fire would be started by rubbing two sticks together. Shark steaks would then be consumed and enjoyed.

That isn't a third option. thats just a statement. C) And writing a statement next to this is not an option. Hence no paradox.

Yeah. I'm confused. What is the option that C) creates?

A) is an option and B) is an option but C) is merely labeled similarly to the actual choices. The convention (a... b... c...) that you follow is stupid, but it doesn't create a paradox.


"Do you like me? Answer yes or no."

"My answer is 3 peanuts."

"I hate you."

Somebodys been watching too many episodes of Man vs Wild.

Just his technique to pick up women.

Poor Allie.

Pffttt she likes it

You cast at the son of a bitch, hook him, then hope to god that you can hang on long enough to get him close to the pier so you can lower down one of the gaffs, only to get the shark gaffed and half way up to the top when he manages to get loose and crash back into the brine.


{{{sigh}}} memories

The existence of C creates a third option by implication, then negates itself.
(Gay) First leveler.

I use a treble gaff on a rope for the pier.
He was way, way too big to 'hoist up'.

The option there might have been to get him in a gill and walk him down the shore, but that would kinda suck when about 3/4 of the way to the beach when he caught a second wind and took off, me holding him with a rope in my hands.

G!!!

B. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and don't see the point of fucking with something when you have no good reason. Sport isn't a good reason.

Yeah, I know, you knew I'd say that.

Haha, no it doesn't.

I do, however, enjoy the random threads you create in which you present random parables.

i can't decide if this is a thinly veiled brag post or thinly veiled beat post. either way, it was superceded by the confusion over lists and options.

Pull the pistol from your waistband. Shoot the shark. Eat the shark. Go back to catching bluegills and trout.

Tom.

That name sounds familiar... are we MySpace friends?

Two things here.

1)





and B) Yes, sport is a perfectly good reason- for heterosexual male humans with typical testosterone levels.

well done...thats all i could think of....weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

E.) Grab a Louisville Slugger and dive in.

I checked my myspace. Not friends with people I don't know.

Tom.

I almost called that one too, but usually you don't break that out until you've given up on an argument. Shooting our loads early now, are we?



No, it's really not. But I understand that a lot of people feel that way. Let's be honest, you'd hunt humans if it was legal. I'm thinking Running Man...but a little deli owner with a machete instead of a juiced up monster with a flame thrower.

I feel like I should have gone with something more graphic than "shooting our loads".

Busting our wads?

Help me out here.

hi

No, really, it is.
Just because there's this enormous population of estrogen laden inner-city eunuchs who feel that they're somehow 'above it all' doesn't change the inherent nature of man- just because a few turd polishing urbane faggots have lost their natural way doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to do the same.

Oh, and here's how the story ends (with myself as the hero, obviously)

Everyone on the pier had a different reaction to the presence of the shark. Some of them pulled up their lines and just watched. A few others were bothered by the shark (as they tend to scare away the 'eatin' fish') so they went further up the pier. Some of them stayed, but purposely avoided the shark whenever it popped up.

Me?
It was almost as if the appearance of that shark had bestowed upon me a god-fucking-given purpose for being there that day. Hooking into it was my only concern in life, to the exclusion of everything else. Whatever I had come to achieve that day was secondary to conquering this fish- which I wasn't able to do- even though I was outmatched and totally undergunned. The reactions to the presence of that fish were very telling, and I believe spoke directly to the nature of each individual there.

Lol. Hunting for sport isn't part of the inherant nature of man. It's a relatively new phenomenon that came about with more civilized culture...basically, the rich were bored. Hunting is in our genes. Hunting "for sport" isn't. If you don't understand the difference then I'm not sure what else to say. I have no problem with you going out and shooting something you're planning on eating (or for population control), but doing it for the trophy or for the fun of it is sad in my opinion. But again, I understand that not everyone shares that opinion.

It's also in our genes to spread our seed. Aren't you about to get married? I guess you're part of the estrogen laden faggot crowd.

Don't worry, I'm still thoroughly impressed that you're a counter-culture badass because you're a city dwelling jew that likes guns and spent time in prison.

Hahahahahahahahaha

Ah. Good times.

LOL!
Silly Shlomo. Sharks are probably the best eating fish in the ocean (IMO)
While the likelihood of landing the shark on light tackle was low, it was still possible and simply hooking it wouldn't have caused it any kind of grave harm, even if it got away.
The whole "for sport" assumption is a total failure.

You said it was uncatchable.

Do you want to start the conversation over?

It probably would've been better if I had originally said "very unlikely that you would be able to land him" since I forgot that Jews might be reading.
The "virtual certainty that you won't be able to land him" - a part which you did not "bold" for the sake of making your little pointstein, does suggest that while unlikely, there is still a degree of possibility to it.

Typical conversational hyperbole allows for speaking in extremes with the understanding that normal reading comprehension allows for slight variance in what one's saying.

You're being pedant and arguing irrelevant semantics, which is THE classic trait of your people.

Whole different story. If that's the case I go for it.

Don't blame me for your poor setup of this hypothetical. It's not a small semantic difference...whether or not you can actually land it is THE issue.

You mean our people.

I am the only one, while intrigued by scram's postings, thinks he masturbates to that movie Surviving the Game?

I was kicked out long ago...

I left peacefully.

Fitting.

alll i ever cauht was sunys

i re-read this with wonder years music playing & it all made sense. you're growing up so fast, young man. so fast.

PAUL ISN'T MARILYN MANSON!

<3 wonder yrs

Harry Chapmin FTW


weeeeeeeeeeeee

IMPROVISE! Find whatever gives me the best shot at killing the shark and go from there.
Its probably about this point where I'm poking at the shark like a moron with a stick, fall
in the water and loss an arm, or two, and maybe a leg.

Remember when that world-famous hunter landed on Gilligan's Island by mistake, and he decided to hunt Gilligan? That was awesome.

This is the funniest "exchange" I've read in a long time.

I love that this picture gets broken out when speedz and scram interact at least 75% of the time


but the thing is, the act of hunting is in our genes. the quest for the kill, if you will. our genes don't really say that if we don't need the end result of the hunt, we aren't going to want to engage in the hunt in the first place. humans have been hunters for millions of years (thousands for lois), and just because we recently lost the need to hunt for our food on a regular basis, it doesn't mean that the desire to "overcome lesser beings," for lack of a better term, will just go away. you can't stalk a lean cuisine.




and on a similar note, I absolutely love, LOVE scram and speedz's little e-relationship. who else here thinks they would more than likely have passionate, angry sex if they ever met? I'm sure of it.