I only read the first 50 or so comments, but this is my favorite (best parts bolded):
I'm not going to post my estimate just yet but damn Dynasty, only 10? First off, 1 day of combat training isn't going to mean anything, they'll forget it all by nap time the next day. Also, 1 hit to the face or torso region sends these punks sprawling and crying on the ground. Plus, they'd be scared shitless. These are real 5 year olds we're talking about, not some cryogenically frozen mutant kids hellbent on seeing your demise. 10 is a gross underestimate.
I got about as far as that comment, then ran a search for "teeth." Apparently, with all the talk of how biting is a fearsome weapon on their side, it never occurred to any of them that these kids have their baby teeth and that some are starting to lose them.
There was a good thread on metafilter about this. The important thing is this: not only are they given a full day's worth of training, but "* The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down. "
Presumably what they'd do is just grab on to your legs from each side, ramming first contrary to and then along the directions of buckling. The first group (especially for a large number like 42) would just be deadweight to get you on the ground, then they'd jump on you or something.
They're small so either you have to kick at them or bend down to punch them; if they're on all sides, you can really kick that efficiently and there are unique dangers associated with bending.
Unless the 5-year-olds have knives and are cranked full of crystal meth, the number is ridiculously high. Any parents here know that making a 5-year-old curl up in a ball and cry doesn't even require physical contact.
Also, ogged has his basic good nature, or uptightness, or what-have-you to contend with in addition to those cute little tykes. As soon as the first one goes down he'd be crippled by guilt and uncertainty.
Man -- do any of these people have actual kids? I may be underestimating, because my 5-year old is unusually big and strong, but ten sounds generous to me. One 5-year old is big and strong enough to severely hamper the use of one adult limb -- just wrapping around a leg or an arm and hanging on. The remaining six should then fairly easily be able to get the adult off balance and down, and then start kicking -- I don't even think you'd need ten.
The posters seem to be assuming a huge speed/competence edge on the part of the adult, which I think is unrealistic. A lot of 5-year-olds are distinctly fast.
LB, your 5-year-old may be fast and big (my 7-year-old is as well), but if you kicked him/her full force anywhere above the ankle, the fight would be over. Like I said, a roomful of tweaked-out kindergarteners in berserker rages might be one thing, but just a day of training? Pshaw.
You're ignoring the motivated/not frightened thing. Real 5-year olds, sure, you could frighten to the point where they weren't fighting you, no trouble. If psychological tactics don't work, I think you've got a real problem.
(Admittedly, the last time I hit someone with the intent of doing injury was my sister when I was twelve of so, so on some deep, fundamental level I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
But this isn't a martial arts movie where they take turns coming at you. As you kick the first one (who, I admit, is going down and not getting back up) two more are tackling each of your legs, and two more for your arms. While they won't be strong enough to control you, they will, I think, be strong enough to keep you from striking effectively. At that point, its just a matter of time until you fall down, and then you're toast.
(And I'd like to correct my prior post -- I'd forgotten a couple of incidents in Samoa where I had to clock someone who jumped me. Still, not actually a fight in the sense that I would have any idea what I'm talking about.)
Apparently it's impossible not to take this question seriously. 42 was a joke, as 42 is always a joke. And, try not to fall over, but I've actually worked in day care, so I know all about five-year-olds. Here's how I think about it. 1) You'll take out a fair number just with your first attack. They're kids. They'll flinch, you'll knock the crap out of them, and they won't get back up. Even facing a horde, I think you could take out 10 pretty quickly. 2) But: once they swarm you, it's all over. While you're knocking out those 10, others will get a hold of you somewhere. You can't shake or injure them all at once. I'd guess that between 15-20 kids could hold me down long enough to knock me unconscious (the other factor here is that not all the kids have a chance to hold or hit you at the same time, so you'll be able to shake free and hurt a few, even in the scrum). 3) So we have 10 that we can just discount; let's say 20 to hold you long enough to harm you, and add, say 5, just to be safe. So, no way you can take more than 35, but you can take at least 15, and probably 20, pretty handily.
The boys in question were in full fight-mode. One had just smacked another and given him a bloody nose, and I was trying to pull them apart and then all three turned on me. So I feel like I was in a simulation of the situation described here. But it's steering me false actually, since I had a hand behind my back in the whole trying-to-knock-them-unconscious department.
My favorite part was the discussion about picking one child up and using him/her as a weapon. I gotta imagine that if you grabbed the ankle of the first kid you clocked and started swinging to connect skull to skull, you could take out a lot of kids before you got too tired to swing 40 pounds around.
That would never work, Chopper--these kids have been trained. Say one weighs 60 pounds. That's not an insubstantial burden always to have at the ready, and five year olds is quick. If you swing at them they'll dodge out of the way, and you'll have to control the swing pretty well (which is wearying) or else they'll swarm you and knock you down.
I think that the guy who noted you could easily outrun them had the key insight. You dance away from the big group, wait for them to come in clusters of (say) six, and dispatch. I'm pretty sure I could take any number of blows to the head from five year olds, but one nice shot from my booted foot and little Jimmy's down for the day (or longer). I think, in the end, the adult would be done in by boredom.
This may be really twisted, but if you knock out enough kids initially, you could build a barricade in such a way as to prevent a swarm from all directions.
I dunno -- can you knock even a five-year-old unconscious with one blow, while simultaneously moving fast enough to keep ahead of the next ten coming after you? I think ogged's description of how it would go down is pretty accurate.
Well, pick a smaller one, then. Let's assume there's a range of child sizes in the group attacking you following the standard distribution. You'll note I specified 40 pounds--which is the average for 5-year old boys. (Sorry, my html-fu sucks: here's a cite: http://pediatrics.about.com/library/growth_charts/nboystwo.htm)
So, grab one of the kids in the 25th percentile. I can swing 35 pounds for a few minutes. (At my post on this subject back at my site, I posited that I could take 20 before going down.)
You may be able to swing 35 pounds for awhile, but it's 35 limp pounds -- can you swing it fast and accurately enough that the kids won't be able to dodge? I sincerely doubt it.
Think of it this way, LB. Imagine 30 kids tightly bunched in a game of red-rover. If you had to, and you weren't worried about hurting the kids, could you run through that knot? Probably. And each time, you could probably grab a straggler and finish him off on the other side.
Look, we could debate this all day. But this is an empirical question, and one for which it should be relatively easy to design the experiment to flesh out our intuitions. Ogged?
Ogged is probably right on the definition of "twisted": you'd probably need a lot of kids to make the barricades high enough to work, and if there were that many kids you probably couldn't hold out long enough to build them.
Imagine 30 kids tightly bunched in a game of red-rover. If you had to, and you weren't worried about hurting the kids, could you run through that knot? Probably. And each time, you could probably grab a straggler and finish him off on the other side.
Tim: Hrm. Here we might be running into a difference in how strong I am, vs. how strong you are. I could get through the knot of kids, no problem. While my passage through wouldn't be pleasant for them, I don't think I could be sure of leaving any unconscious behind me, without stopping and focussing on the process for at least a couple of seconds (i.e. repeated blows). At that point, I've been swarmed by the rest.
If I thought I could knock a kid out with one blow as I ran by (which might easily be realistic for most men), the calculus would change a lot.
(I cannot believe that I've been discussing this for this length of time. We're all going to burn in hell for this.)
I hope no one notices how many times I just wrote probably.
A sentence was at a job interview, and the interviewer said "we're starting a new paragraph and we have an opening for an unambiguous, declarative sentence. Do you fit that criteria?"
"Well," replied the sentence, "I'm pretty sure that I am probably the sort of sentence you may be looking for."
And the interviewer said "Sorry, but I'm afraid you are over-qualified."
(I cannot believe that I've been discussing this for this length of time. We're all going to burn in hell for this.)
It's amazing, isn't it? After I came across the link at Mimi's site last night, I spent a good half hour talking it over with two friends at the bar. And now here I am, back at it.
The question here shouldn't really be about the tactics the five-year-olds could or would be likely to use, but rather the incremental effects of each attack on the subject adult, which, completely depends upon the adult. Against an average woman or small male, the tykes would probably be able to win with some reasonable number on their side... like, say, 30 or so. But as the adult's size and strength increased, the number of kids required to overcome him or her would increase exponentially, and I think a point would be reached at which the only limitation on the number of kids the adult was able to overcome would be the adult's own stamina.
I think another reason that the number should be really high is that being put on the floor on your back wouldn't actually be the end. From that position you could trip several children approaching you at once, which would block future children from approaching you at any kind of speed, and therefore allow you to get back up. Someone's going to say that by the time you're on the ground all of your limbs are pinned, but that while falling down you can wriggle away/ shove five year olds away.
Joe, I didn't write that. I stole it from defectiveyeti (where the link leads). You think I would use "criteria" as a singular noun (well—maybe, given that Weiner's been showing up my carelessness pretty regularly of late)?
Incidentally, if you see, via your sitemeter, someone who googled your site using the words "waste wolfson," that googler was not, as you might expect, one of the many paid assassins on your trail.
Matthew Baldwin is, like, a blog celebrity! He writes for the morning news, and whenever takes a dump, anil dash and jason kottke come running with toilet paper. I estimate ownership of that joke on this comment page (a mere comment page!) at pi%.
There's not much to tell, annie. My mom teaches little ones, so for a couple of summers I joined her at a combination day camp/day care. I did learn not to be grossed out by snot, but that's about it.
There is one moment that I still remember. Lots of kids say cute precocious things, but we had one cherubic four-year-old girl from New Zealand who told me that she liked pickled onions. I asked her if everyone in New Zealand liked pickled onions and she said, "I don't think everyone likes them quite as much as I do, but I'm sure some people like them more." That's some jaw-droppingly sophisticated thinking for a four-year-old.
I only read the first 50 or so comments, but this is my favorite (best parts bolded):
I'm not going to post my estimate just yet but damn Dynasty, only 10? First off, 1 day of combat training isn't going to mean anything, they'll forget it all by nap time the next day. Also, 1 hit to the face or torso region sends these punks sprawling and crying on the ground. Plus, they'd be scared shitless. These are real 5 year olds we're talking about, not some cryogenically frozen mutant kids hellbent on seeing your demise. 10 is a gross underestimate.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:27 AM
I got about as far as that comment, then ran a search for "teeth." Apparently, with all the talk of how biting is a fearsome weapon on their side, it never occurred to any of them that these kids have their baby teeth and that some are starting to lose them.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:31 AM
Kotsko, awesome! That's the kind of application of detailed knowledge that the ladies love. I might have to start calling you LL Cool K.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:34 AM
There was a good thread on metafilter about this. The important thing is this: not only are they given a full day's worth of training, but "* The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down. "
Presumably what they'd do is just grab on to your legs from each side, ramming first contrary to and then along the directions of buckling. The first group (especially for a large number like 42) would just be deadweight to get you on the ground, then they'd jump on you or something.
They're small so either you have to kick at them or bend down to punch them; if they're on all sides, you can really kick that efficiently and there are unique dangers associated with bending.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:38 AM
Unless the 5-year-olds have knives and are cranked full of crystal meth, the number is ridiculously high. Any parents here know that making a 5-year-old curl up in a ball and cry doesn't even require physical contact.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:39 AM
Apo, do you mean "ridiculously low"?
Also, ogged has his basic good nature, or uptightness, or what-have-you to contend with in addition to those cute little tykes. As soon as the first one goes down he'd be crippled by guilt and uncertainty.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:44 AM
Man -- do any of these people have actual kids? I may be underestimating, because my 5-year old is unusually big and strong, but ten sounds generous to me. One 5-year old is big and strong enough to severely hamper the use of one adult limb -- just wrapping around a leg or an arm and hanging on. The remaining six should then fairly easily be able to get the adult off balance and down, and then start kicking -- I don't even think you'd need ten.
The posters seem to be assuming a huge speed/competence edge on the part of the adult, which I think is unrealistic. A lot of 5-year-olds are distinctly fast.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:45 AM
No, the number of kids it would take to bring down an adult is ridiculously high.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:54 AM
I was nearly taken down by three five year olds at my niece's birthday party recently, and I'm 5'8", so I second LB.
At the same party there was a little boy who wanted to play dolls, and brush my hair. He was more my speed.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:57 AM
LB, your 5-year-old may be fast and big (my 7-year-old is as well), but if you kicked him/her full force anywhere above the ankle, the fight would be over. Like I said, a roomful of tweaked-out kindergarteners in berserker rages might be one thing, but just a day of training? Pshaw.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 8:57 AM
You're ignoring the motivated/not frightened thing. Real 5-year olds, sure, you could frighten to the point where they weren't fighting you, no trouble. If psychological tactics don't work, I think you've got a real problem.
(Admittedly, the last time I hit someone with the intent of doing injury was my sister when I was twelve of so, so on some deep, fundamental level I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:00 AM
No, the number of kids it would take to bring down an adult is ridiculously high.
Oh, I thought you were saying ogged's estimate was ridiculously high.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:01 AM
Apostropher--
But this isn't a martial arts movie where they take turns coming at you. As you kick the first one (who, I admit, is going down and not getting back up) two more are tackling each of your legs, and two more for your arms. While they won't be strong enough to control you, they will, I think, be strong enough to keep you from striking effectively. At that point, its just a matter of time until you fall down, and then you're toast.
(And I'd like to correct my prior post -- I'd forgotten a couple of incidents in Samoa where I had to clock someone who jumped me. Still, not actually a fight in the sense that I would have any idea what I'm talking about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:05 AM
This topic reminds me of one of my favorite jokes, but it's only funny when spoken aloud.
You're welcome.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:06 AM
Apparently it's impossible not to take this question seriously. 42 was a joke, as 42 is always a joke. And, try not to fall over, but I've actually worked in day care, so I know all about five-year-olds. Here's how I think about it. 1) You'll take out a fair number just with your first attack. They're kids. They'll flinch, you'll knock the crap out of them, and they won't get back up. Even facing a horde, I think you could take out 10 pretty quickly. 2) But: once they swarm you, it's all over. While you're knocking out those 10, others will get a hold of you somewhere. You can't shake or injure them all at once. I'd guess that between 15-20 kids could hold me down long enough to knock me unconscious (the other factor here is that not all the kids have a chance to hold or hit you at the same time, so you'll be able to shake free and hurt a few, even in the scrum). 3) So we have 10 that we can just discount; let's say 20 to hold you long enough to harm you, and add, say 5, just to be safe. So, no way you can take more than 35, but you can take at least 15, and probably 20, pretty handily.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:07 AM
Shit, ogged's down!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:08 AM
The boys in question were in full fight-mode. One had just smacked another and given him a bloody nose, and I was trying to pull them apart and then all three turned on me. So I feel like I was in a simulation of the situation described here. But it's steering me false actually, since I had a hand behind my back in the whole trying-to-knock-them-unconscious department.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:08 AM
Dammit -- the first time Ogged's comment came up, it ended in the middle of a sentence. Under those circumstances, my prior post was funny.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:09 AM
That was funny. Sorry, often I let the first draft just float at the bottom, while I rewrite up top...had to go back and delete it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:10 AM
My favorite part was the discussion about picking one child up and using him/her as a weapon. I gotta imagine that if you grabbed the ankle of the first kid you clocked and started swinging to connect skull to skull, you could take out a lot of kids before you got too tired to swing 40 pounds around.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:13 AM
That would never work, Chopper--these kids have been trained. Say one weighs 60 pounds. That's not an insubstantial burden always to have at the ready, and five year olds is quick. If you swing at them they'll dodge out of the way, and you'll have to control the swing pretty well (which is wearying) or else they'll swarm you and knock you down.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:19 AM
I think that the guy who noted you could easily outrun them had the key insight. You dance away from the big group, wait for them to come in clusters of (say) six, and dispatch. I'm pretty sure I could take any number of blows to the head from five year olds, but one nice shot from my booted foot and little Jimmy's down for the day (or longer). I think, in the end, the adult would be done in by boredom.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:33 AM
Okay, next theoretical: how many 5-year-olds would be required to take down a pit bull?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:38 AM
This may be really twisted, but if you knock out enough kids initially, you could build a barricade in such a way as to prevent a swarm from all directions.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:38 AM
Oh yeah, eb, until now the conversation's been relatively polite, but you've pushed it into "twisted" territory.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:40 AM
I dunno -- can you knock even a five-year-old unconscious with one blow, while simultaneously moving fast enough to keep ahead of the next ten coming after you? I think ogged's description of how it would go down is pretty accurate.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:41 AM
Well, pick a smaller one, then. Let's assume there's a range of child sizes in the group attacking you following the standard distribution. You'll note I specified 40 pounds--which is the average for 5-year old boys. (Sorry, my html-fu sucks: here's a cite: http://pediatrics.about.com/library/growth_charts/nboystwo.htm)
So, grab one of the kids in the 25th percentile. I can swing 35 pounds for a few minutes. (At my post on this subject back at my site, I posited that I could take 20 before going down.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:41 AM
You may be able to swing 35 pounds for awhile, but it's 35 limp pounds -- can you swing it fast and accurately enough that the kids won't be able to dodge? I sincerely doubt it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:45 AM
There's the dodging problem, but there's also the problem of what happens when you connect: you'll stagger, if only for a second, and then, adios...
Tim, eb is right, if by "twisted" we understand "so unlikely to work that the mind that suggests it is probably not whole."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:47 AM
Think of it this way, LB. Imagine 30 kids tightly bunched in a game of red-rover. If you had to, and you weren't worried about hurting the kids, could you run through that knot? Probably. And each time, you could probably grab a straggler and finish him off on the other side.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:49 AM
Each time you'd get slower and slower ... more and more kids would end up clinging to your ankles ... you're a goner, Tim.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:50 AM
Look, we could debate this all day. But this is an empirical question, and one for which it should be relatively easy to design the experiment to flesh out our intuitions. Ogged?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:52 AM
Ogged is probably right on the definition of "twisted": you'd probably need a lot of kids to make the barricades high enough to work, and if there were that many kids you probably couldn't hold out long enough to build them.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:53 AM
He doesn't work in day care anymore. You'll have to look elsewhere for you supplier of kidflesh.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:54 AM
I hope no one notices how many times I just wrote probably.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:54 AM
I've rassled with my niece and nephew, and I would suggest that you're giving far too much credit to a five-year-olds dodging abilities.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:54 AM
old's
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 9:55 AM
And yes, w/r/t #29 it is quite possible - even likely - that the mind in question is not whole.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:02 AM
Imagine 30 kids tightly bunched in a game of red-rover. If you had to, and you weren't worried about hurting the kids, could you run through that knot? Probably. And each time, you could probably grab a straggler and finish him off on the other side.
Tim: Hrm. Here we might be running into a difference in how strong I am, vs. how strong you are. I could get through the knot of kids, no problem. While my passage through wouldn't be pleasant for them, I don't think I could be sure of leaving any unconscious behind me, without stopping and focussing on the process for at least a couple of seconds (i.e. repeated blows). At that point, I've been swarmed by the rest.
If I thought I could knock a kid out with one blow as I ran by (which might easily be realistic for most men), the calculus would change a lot.
(I cannot believe that I've been discussing this for this length of time. We're all going to burn in hell for this.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:03 AM
I want to hear more about Ogged's adventures in daycare.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:04 AM
I hope no one notices how many times I just wrote probably.
A sentence was at a job interview, and the interviewer said "we're starting a new paragraph and we have an opening for an unambiguous, declarative sentence. Do you fit that criteria?"
"Well," replied the sentence, "I'm pretty sure that I am probably the sort of sentence you may be looking for."
And the interviewer said "Sorry, but I'm afraid you are over-qualified."
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:05 AM
(I cannot believe that I've been discussing this for this length of time. We're all going to burn in hell for this.)
It's amazing, isn't it? After I came across the link at Mimi's site last night, I spent a good half hour talking it over with two friends at the bar. And now here I am, back at it.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:13 AM
In the future, when they develop robots to exactly mimic the abilities of five year olds, we will all know why.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 10:24 AM
I think we have found the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 11:15 AM
The question here shouldn't really be about the tactics the five-year-olds could or would be likely to use, but rather the incremental effects of each attack on the subject adult, which, completely depends upon the adult. Against an average woman or small male, the tykes would probably be able to win with some reasonable number on their side... like, say, 30 or so. But as the adult's size and strength increased, the number of kids required to overcome him or her would increase exponentially, and I think a point would be reached at which the only limitation on the number of kids the adult was able to overcome would be the adult's own stamina.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 11:56 AM
that should be ", which completely depends..."
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 11:57 AM
I think another reason that the number should be really high is that being put on the floor on your back wouldn't actually be the end. From that position you could trip several children approaching you at once, which would block future children from approaching you at any kind of speed, and therefore allow you to get back up. Someone's going to say that by the time you're on the ground all of your limbs are pinned, but that while falling down you can wriggle away/ shove five year olds away.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:43 PM
Michael, I think it's more likely that we've found the question to the answer.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:46 PM
Aw C'mon, Apostropher has the best answer so far.
Are you misunderstanding the contest? These kids have to render you unconcious, not just hold you down or something.
I don't think a normal five year old kid could know me out, period. Tie me up so I can't move an inch and the kid still couldn't knock me out.
I'd nail them until I got tired, rest, and start again. A quick poke in the eye or cowbite on the nads and the kids are done.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:51 PM
I'd nail them until I got tired, rest, and start again.
This ain't the boy scouts!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:53 PM
"Knock me out," not "know me out," although no kid could ever know me out, either.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:54 PM
ben,
Good one! Great one! And fast, too.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:55 PM
And the interviewer said "Sorry, but I'm afraid you are over-qualified."
Wolfson, don't you have several fatwas aimed at you for this sort of thing already?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:56 PM
Joe, I didn't write that. I stole it from defectiveyeti (where the link leads). You think I would use "criteria" as a singular noun (well—maybe, given that Weiner's been showing up my carelessness pretty regularly of late)?
I'm just reporting the facts on the ground, man.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 1:58 PM
I'm just reporting the facts on the ground, man.
I think Duncan's You Link It, You Own It rule applies here.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 2:02 PM
Incidentally, if you see, via your sitemeter, someone who googled your site using the words "waste wolfson," that googler was not, as you might expect, one of the many paid assassins on your trail.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 2:04 PM
ben,
Yeah, and the Supreme Court recently had a ruling about this.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 2:05 PM
Matthew Baldwin is, like, a blog celebrity! He writes for the morning news, and whenever takes a dump, anil dash and jason kottke come running with toilet paper. I estimate ownership of that joke on this comment page (a mere comment page!) at pi%.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 2:05 PM
Weiner: argh, yes, that's what I meant.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-31-05 2:05 PM
Still waiting to hear about ogged's adventures in daycare...I'm having trouble picturing it.
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 04- 3-05 11:11 AM
There's not much to tell, annie. My mom teaches little ones, so for a couple of summers I joined her at a combination day camp/day care. I did learn not to be grossed out by snot, but that's about it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04- 3-05 12:18 PM
There is one moment that I still remember. Lots of kids say cute precocious things, but we had one cherubic four-year-old girl from New Zealand who told me that she liked pickled onions. I asked her if everyone in New Zealand liked pickled onions and she said, "I don't think everyone likes them quite as much as I do, but I'm sure some people like them more." That's some jaw-droppingly sophisticated thinking for a four-year-old.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04- 3-05 12:24 PM