Dak

this is how i started reasoning: let x = price of party favour, Y = total number of favours bought, $ = total amount of money posessed, and c = cent. "4c less per 100x" = "0.04c less per x" Yx < $ Y(x+0.04c) > $ Yx +0.04cY > $ (Y-5)(x+0.04c) < $ Yx - 5x +0.04cY - 0.2c < $ then i tried simultaniously solving the equasions, and trying to work out one of the values. for ages. and ages. if anyone can do anything with the above..? if this turns out to be unsolvable, then i shal personaly hunt down the person responsible and repeatadly beat them with a wet haddock.

sorry, i was tired when i posted that. ok: on the left, product of the quadratic eqasion. on the right, the numbers which are input into the equasion (ie, x) 735:1 682:2 582:4 535:5 490:6 406:7 367:9 262:12 202:14 175:15 150:16 106:18 87:19 70:20 42:22 i had to work out the quadratic equasion used to generate the numbers, and this is what i did: ok, so its quadratic: ax^2 + bx + c = y taking 1 (which gives 735) and 2 (which gives = 682) a + b + c = 735 4a + 2b + c = 682 divide second by 2 to get a + b + c = 735 2a + b + 1/2c = 341 take second from first to get 1/2c -a = 394 <--eqasion A now take 4(which gives 582) and 6(which gives 490) to get 16a + 4b + c = 582 36a + 6b + c = 490 times top by 3 and bottom by 2 to get 48a + 12b + 3c = 1746 72a + 12b + 2c = 980 take second from first to get -24a + c = 766 <equasion B put equasions A and B together 1/2c -a = 394 c - 24a = 766 times top by 2 to get c -2a = 788 <--equasion C c - 24a = 766 take first from second to get -22a = -22 times by -1 and divide by 22 to get a = 1 using equasion C c -2a = 788 becomes c - 2 = 788 add 2 c = 790 now the quadratic for '1', which gives 735 a + b + c = 735 becomes 1 + b + 790 = 735 subtract 791 b = -56 so, the quadratic is x^2 - 56x + 790 = y test: take 22, which gives 42. x^2 - 56x + 790 = y = 42 22^2 - (56*22) + 790 = y = 42 484 -1232 + 790 = y = 42 42 = y = 42 right, now all of that took a long time, and essentialy was a prosess of simultaniously solving equasions - but i dont remember it, in the dim resesses of my mind, taking that long when i was at college and could actually remember maths. so my question is, is there a faster/easyer way of doing what i did? the phrases 'bracketing out' and that equasion that involves 'plus-or-minus b times square root of 4ac' spring (vaguely) to mind. cheers

<-- read far too many spy books as a kid sorry, didnt know you just wanted a clue.

"panzerkampfwagen" = panzer (armoured) kampf (battle) wagen (viecle) called 'tigers' by the allies, getting confused with my big cats! im normally against this kind of pro-pc-doobries, equating it exactly to racism, sexism, etc, however i think in the case of the church they would really benifit from having a black, female, lesbian pope. just once. even if she wasnt actively gay, and was very, very sorry that she was a female.

ubderlinde numbers refer to the questions put out in post 196. all text enclosed by quote marks are quotes from bourbohemian. with reference to 1/ "Ask the boy straight fowardly if he enjoyed the contact or not." 1.1/what if the boy was coersed into saying that he did, even though he dint. 1.2/what if the boy enjoyed it, but ultimately it was detrimental to him 1.3/what if the child enjoys it, and then lies and says he was coersed. childeren can fail to comprehend the magnitude and severity of these kinds of accusations. 1.4/what if the boy wanted to try it out and then did not enjoy it? with reference to 2/ "'Junk science' is the word that comes to mind. For starters it's a civil rights spectrum for both the boys and responsible boylovers themselves. Before any progress is made, society needs to first understand the difference between a man who has a sexual/romantic connection boys and a man who is only predatory/regressed in his sexuality. The later are the people you want to lock up." i acknowledge that there is not a majical event that happens on a persons 16th birthday (or 18th birthday in the us) which converts them from sexually unready --> sexually ready in the blink of an eye. some 16+ people are unready for sex, and some <16 are ready, however i conjecture that there can be difficulty in determining the readyness of someone to have sex. my argument is thus: imajine that 1% of all 'boy lovers' make an error when determining if a child is ready for sex. imajine that the age of concent was abolished imajine that this lead to an increase in the number of 'boy lovers' now, that 1% of mistaken assesment of a childs readyness for sex represents a higher number of childeren slept with before they were ready, even though we are, in this case, only looking at people who are making an effort to only sleep with people who will not find the experience detrimental. therefore, i feel that point 2/ still stands. with reference to 3/"That's up to the child" 3.1/i do not believe that most childeren, or arguably most victims, reguardless of age, are mature and/or responsible enough to chose an adequate punishment 3.1.1/what if the child choses death? 3.1.2/ what if the child choses something exessively sadistic, like having the skin peeled off by a potato peeler and then submersed in a bath of vinegar? would we carry out this punishment? 3.1.3/would the child be given free range to deside upon the punishment, or would the child have a range of punishments to chose from - if so, what would be the max/min punishments. 3.1.4/what if the child balks at punishing the perpetrator and opts for no punishment with reguards to 4/"To determine the quality of the relationship - whether or not the adult brought himself to the same sexual level of the child. For most boylovers, their romantic feelings for a particular boy has them engaging in sexual contact on the same level of the boy - whether or not the boylover is childlike in his sexual interaction determines the quality of the relationship." i didnt make myself clear. what i meant was basically this. 4.0/ BACKGROUND: this is common to the legal system of every developed contry: for a person to have commited a crime, they must exhibit two 'things': actus reus, or 'guilty act': the person must have done something wrong mens area, or 'guilty mind': the person must have had an unnaceptable mental prossess or thought. merely having carried out the actus reus is not enough - imajine some one who unknowingly handles stolen goods. they have commited an illegal act, but the abscense of mens area ie intent means no crime has been commited. merely posessing the mens area is not enough - imagine someone who contemplates murder - the 'guilty mind' is definately present, but in the abscense of the actus reus ie the actual criminal act of murder, there is no crime. to be charged with, and punished for, a crime, it must be proven that the person carried out the actus reus and possessed the mens area. with the current age of conset, this is easy: ie, if sexual contact can be proven, then the actus reus (of sleeping with an under age person) is proven, and the mens area is (knowing that sleeping with someone under the age of consent is illegal) is easy to prove - everyone is aware of the age of consent, so everyone who sleeps with a child is doing something which they KNOW to be illegal. 4.0/ POINT: imajin the age of consent is abolished: if it can be proven that an adult had a sex with a child and that this is detrimental to the child, then actus reus has been proven. however, to punish someone -- and thus to enforse any legestature reguarding sleeping with childeren -- mens area must also be proven. how would you propose we would go about proving wether someone knew that the relationship would be detrimental to the child or not? if this is not possible, then people who knowingly have detrimental sexual relationships with childeren would be unpunishable, and thus we would have no mechanisms for protecting childeren from coersive paedophiles. please note that the legal prosess must prove both actus reus and mens area before punishing someone, otherwize the punishment is viewed as a breach of human rights by the united nations. i am basically arguing that allowing people to sleep with childeren when it would not harm them, and illegalising it when it would harm them, is unenforsable and childeren would suffer as a result. with reference to 5/ "While parents can do what they please within the confines of the law, I don't believe the government should enforce parental hysteria." 5.1/parents can prevent their childeren seeing their friends, if they feel that their friend is a bad influence on the child. so what if a parent objects that the reletionship is bad for the child and attempts to prevent contact. with referense to 6/"What do you mean by 'gift-giving'?" choral rhied summed it up, albeit crudely. 'want a lollypop, kiddy?' (not a direct quote) expansion on point 6/: childeren are extremely receptive to act-reward behavioral enforsment, ie if they do something, and then they get a reward, they will repeat the act. if presents are given following sexual favours, this could be interpreted as: #the adult essentially 'tricking' the child into having sex with him, by exploiting their receptiveness to reward-enforsment #the child essentially being a prostetute, ie having sex for material gain #the adult materialistically expressing his genuine care and affection for the child. this could rase some complications, vis: 6.1/is exploiting the childs reward-enforsment reseptiveness acceptable? 6.2/is child prostetution acceptable 6.3/whils genuine gifts are acceptable, if the scenarios layed out in 6.1 and 6.2 are unnaceptable, and thus punished as a deterrent, how would we differetiate between genuine gift-giving and the other two types of 'gift-giving', that we may punish, and thus deterr, exploitation and child prostetution without punishing genuine expressions of affection? how it would be effectively implimented

i thought marinol was a functional isomer of THC? not strictly speaking true; or at least, no truer than saying that alcohol increases hiv spread because it lowers inhibition and contributes to a decreased likelyhood of using a condom. the association is due mainly to the popularity of meth in the gay community in america; the main contribution meths has to hiv spread is due to people who are stupid enough to inject it, and share needles.

panzer is also german for panther, i believe. bbc news (pope) homosexuals are intrinsically evil, pro-choicers should be denied communion, against the church becoming involved in human rights promotion: what a f***ing amazing choice for pope.

(numbered for ease of reference) 1/how would you suggest assesing each individual case, so that: A/ whenever the relationship is detrimental to the child, it is found to be so so it may stoped and the abuser punished B/ whenever the relationship is non-detrimental to the child, it is found to be not detrimental, so the 'boy lover', as you put it, is not unjustly punished also: 2/do you not think that this would encorage people to sleep with childeren, and by incoraging 'boy-loving' you would be increasing the level of child abuse, even if only through errors of jujment as to wether the child is ready or not by the 'boy lovers' 3/what punishment would you suggest for people who coerse childeren into having sex, or talk them into having sex even if they thought it would be bad for the child? 4/how would you propose to establish the adults intent, ie if the relationship was deemed damaging, how would you know if the adult thought it wuold be so or genuinely thought it would be ok 5/what would happen if the parents objected? could they stop the relationship? 6/what would be a workable policy on 'gift-giving' unless these issues can be resolved, i do not believe that abolishing the age of concent would be in the best interests of childeren as a whole

considering how rebelliouse i was, ii was actually quite accquisant to my mums safety conserns, but would have drawn the line at inserting a tracking beackon. thats just... dodgy. perhaps more relevent is the fact that an abducter could always cut it out. anyway, most paedophile attacks are from people who know the victim, and its usually of a 'while mummys not looking' variety, as opposed to an abduction. and as long as there are people as retaurdedly rebelliouse as me, whod take a knife to themselves rather than tolerate a tracking beacon, theyed probably do more harm than good. also, could a littly tin foil wrapped around the appropriate body part not jam the signal?

nah, we have chetoes here in the uk too, theyre different. wotsits are 'puffyer'

havning just spent an hour trying to solve it, i agree

although of course cars cannot complain about being thus tagged if i had such a chip as a kid, i would have cut it out, assuming it wasnt too deeply bearied - simply sub-sutaniouse, and ittd be out of my body before you coulds say 'ouch, cutting that out really hurt'.

aah, i misread you first post. i read " i take it what your saying is..." well, i have taken numerouse dyslexia tests and 'scored' everywhere between heavily dislexic and just plain ol' cack at spelling, so i assume, at least with dyslexia, that the symptoms are present in the general populace just at a lower magnitude

for those members of this forum who are not from the uk, 'wotzits', or more correctly a 'cheesy wotzits', or 'cheesy wotsits' if you want it spelt correctly, are a delitiously cheesy puff-crisp (or puff-chip, i suppose, if your in the us). much akin to cheesy poofs, but tastier. mmm, cheesy wotzits. here is a picture of some packets of cheesy wotsits click and here is a picture of a lady in a bath of cheesy wotsits, holding one up to the camera for you to see click cheesy wotsits are tasty, and sit lightly on the stomach, meaning you can eat lots and lots of them, making them an ideal remidy for the 'munchies', hence why J + offer of wotsits = motivation. maybe a marsbar would have been a better, more universal, choice, but i like the inherent humor of cheesy wotsits. hope that clears things up

nooooooo, im saying: being bad at spelling = being bad at spelling being very bad at spelling = dyslexia --- hearing voices = hearing voices hearing lots of bad voices = scitzophrenia ie the condition is a phenomina that is present in 'normal' people but cranked up (i know there vastly over-generalised, but hey) are there any psycological conditions where the mental phenomena isnt present in 'normal' people, albeit at a much lower level? sorry for any unclarity

lol, i got: semag is games spelt bacwordgs is it a goog screen name? cag, rj rq t lavd 'pyyp' gvakaaf ftea .

just a tip: if your reply comes a couple of posts after the question to which it responds, it might be worth quoting the question. otherwize people will wonder why you randomly declaired what your avatar is funny tho

well then my appologies, but it does seem as if you are having trouble comprehending the fact that there are people who will take advantage of childeren, and i was merely theoryorising as to a possible cause for this. again, appologies if this causes offence, it is just an observation.

i still feel the question 'what if it is detrimental to the child' is more relevant. the way i see it, we can either ban sex with childeren, and spoil a few relationships, or allow sex with childeren, and spoil a few childeren more-so than the childeren would be spoiled whos perfictly acceptable relationships were split up unless you can propose a method by which we can prevent it in cases where it would be detrimental, and allow it in casees where it would not?

bourbohemian: it sounds as if your suing for a much less interfering govornment. my appologies if this sounds condensing, but it might be that you are a really responsible, nice person yourself, with responsible nice friends, and that this has made you naive. remember that there are utter assholes and idiots in the world. p.s., what exactly is a 'straw man'?

in england, the police can charge for assault and rape even against the wishes of the victim, for the reasons you stated -- that many victims refuse to see themselfs as such (oh, he didnt really rape me... i guess i wasnt really in the mood...but...hed never hurt me... no, he didnt rape me, i must just have not said no loud enough...etc)

as previously stated, drugs can harm people and people can be incapable of making an informed, sensible disision, and so the disision is made for them arresting people for personal use of drugs acts as a deterrent to others, and so protects those others.

if i pick your pocket, but you do not notice and thus do not consider it as theft, how can it be fetht? child abuse = doing something detrimental to the child the childs knowledge of the detriment is irrelivent.

which is why im against allowing the ability to chose specific traits for your childeren, excepting chosing to fix genetic disorders

which would work in your case, but imajine another, where the child is sufering from the relationship but, in his youthful inexperience, is failing to see this/has been convinced otherwize by the adult. in that situation would your system not fail?