Oh. You don't? It means another gruesome and bloody year of beast dueling has passed and a new one is upon us. And since apparently there is a lot of confusion regarding beast dueling and the proper ways to handicap matches, I'm going to share a few tricks of the trade with you all.
First of all, I think we all need to keep in mind that what I say is law. I have never and will never be wrong about a beast duel. Now, is this to say that the result of each duel happens the way it does because I say so, or do I merely know the right answer?
It's hard to say. But either way, disagreeing with me is tantamount to beast duels suicide. It's incredibly important to remember this. You don't want to be at some fancy cocktail party trying to impress the whore you brought and have her overhear you get schooled by the hors d'oeuvres-carrier guy because you were too stupid to think that 300,000 bees couldn't take down a zombie. Not paying attention here just cost you some easy tail. So listen up kids, and remember rule #1
Rule #1: What I say is law.
Okay, we've got the most important rule out of the way, so let's get a little more in depth. What is important to take into account in handicapping a beast duel? Clearly, one of the most significant factors is numbers. Here's why:
John Maynard Smith (dead guy) developed a game theory concept called "war of attrition". According to the mathematical scholarly journal Wikipedia, this is "a model of aggression in which two contestants compete for a resource of value V by persisting while constantly accumulating costs over the time t that the contest lasts." If you're not following me, I don't know what to tell you.
Anyways, the point of this all is that in a beast duel team made of multiple contestants, they can persist longer and accumulate more cost over the same period of time. In layman's terms* this just reflects the axiom regarding "strength in numbers"
Yeh, son. Word.
So keep in mind rule #2:
Rule #2: Generally, there are strength in numbers.
"Oh, but Nick, didn't you have a post where one velociraptor beat its weight in Compsognathuses?"
You pompous little shit. Do I have to remind you about rule #1 already? Do I?! Go back to the top of this and start again, dickface.
Maybe you've never heard the expression "it's the exception that proves the rule." I don't really know what the fuck it means** because it kinda sounds like it's inherently impossible, but regardless, I'm always right so sit down and shut the fuck up before we have our first beast duel of 2009: the back of my hand vs. your fucking face. No matter who wins that, I win.
Anyways, I'll throw you one more bone for the time being as long as you stay quiet and watch your fucking attitude.
Rule #3: Winning is the only thing that matters.
I don't want to sound cliche, but close only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades, right? So if 9 lions fight 11 tigers and a loan tiger survives the match (this documented fact), it doesn't matter that the lions killed more tigers or that the tigers nearly succumbed. The point is that the tigers were victorious. Who cares that the lions just barely came in second?! Who remembers second place? I mean, no one remembers who the hell came in second in the Trojan War, am I right?
Goddamn right I'm right. I'm always right***.
Okay, that's all for now. I hope everyone has a happy new year filled with copious amounts of wonderful dueling.
Until next time,
Nick
*I'm stupiding this down for you
**I actually do understand, but since I'm sure you don't, the online literary magazine Wikipedia explains it better than I care to spend thirty seconds doing. Even though Wikipedia doesn't even bother to tackle the notion that there are multiple definitions to the word "prove" leading to confusion. I claim this as my first of a series of attacks on Wikipedia that will ultimately lead me to claim dominance to it, and subsequently, all of intelligent life on the internet.
***See Rule #1
1 comment:
I understand that you are sour because I discovered the only beast able to defeat its weight in bees (read: one zombie v. approx. 300,000 bees) but that is no excuse for you to explode into a meaningless diatribe attempting to justify your ignorance towards the power of the living dead.
I mean seriously man, you met Max Brooks. Let's be real.
The only rational arguments in your favor would be that a.) zombies aren't real or b.) zombies are already dead so the lose by default.
If we examine these two pitiful statements we'll find that those who argue position A are retarded and those who argue position B clearly haven't read about or studied the zombie wars; ergo, both fail as legitimate arguments.
If you head over to my blog and read the first few lines of the latest entry you'll see what I'm talking about.
Post a Comment