forre's mind f*cker

[forre]

Originally posted by spyretto


Does the sun really shine at 4am in the morning in Sweden?

Yep, I know spyretto that you saw the correct answer after the line above but still ...

I could see the sun if the landscape was flat. Unfortunately there's a mountain which doesn't allow the sun shine into my face until ca. 6AM. You see so many small details that could make at least 3 answers be correct.

[kishkash]

Wow Forre!! thanks so much for this thread. We should do more stimulating things like this in the forum more often

[smilie faces]

I knew it..
it was da' "birds"!!
hahahahah

[KillaQueen]

birds already sing there at that hour?? hmm... romanian birds must be more lazy then lol... bloody things start singing at 5AM or something...

[spyretto]

well, if the sun shines so early in the morning 'course the birds would start singing before. Last time I checked a stupid bird started singing at 4 and the light breaks around 5 am here. So anything's possible

[Bitty2002]

wow, how shocking. I was so not expecting that to be the answer. Totally hit me from left field, like BAM.

Wait, wait, you mean like you can like correlate this to Tatu??? Whoa, like, that is too much. So wait, are you saying that any "fact" could be misconstrued, abused, manipulated to one’s own will and desire of what they “want” to see? Whoa, like totally crazy! What if, say, “someone” had a video of the girls kissing some boys passionately or a video of the girls’ parents saying, “they are not lesbians”; this could be just a manipulation of some greater Truth?? So these facts people on the “inside” claim to have, could really be just as fabricated or misread??? Or if we have HUNDREDS of videos of the girls kissing each other passionately or saying they love each other… you mean… they could lying? Silly little girls lie all the time, but parents never lie, duh silly me, I keep forgetting that. So perhaps there is NEVER any real evidence for anything, because you can turn around and find one more alteration, one more piece of the puzzle and suddenly that “evidence” can be interpreted a totally different way?? Ughh, totally lost and confused now. Oh no, oh no, this is just too much for me to handle. Forget this sh*t! I just can’t take being a fan anymore!

[forre]

Originally posted by Bitty2002

Wait, wait, you mean like you can like correlate this to Tatu??? Whoa, like, that is too much. So wait, are you saying that any "fact" could be misconstrued, abused, manipulated to one’s own will and desire of what they “want” to see? Whoa, like totally crazy! What if, say, “someone” had a video of the girls kissing some boys passionately or a video of the girls’ parents saying, “they are not lesbians”;.........
Forget this sh*t! I just can’t take being a fan anymore!

I mean that a person provides theories and answers based on his/her knowledge and experience. Generally the test was givin to perfectly display this idea.

To be or not to be (a fan) is certainly your own choice.

[freddie]

Originally posted by forre
It's 4.00 AM in the morning. June 2003. It's clear (no clouds, no rain). Location - my house in Sweden. I open the window and hear the birds singing.

Now check through the thread and look at the alternatives given. Just try to think of what great analysis and theories everyone is capable to create while I just supplied you with a few facts. The test was very simple.

Speak about analysing t.A.T.u.! Oh my!

P.S. freddie of course you can always question my credibility. Pssss ... he-he.

Hmmm...wait a minute...wasn't my answer basicly CORRECT? I said that the birds are chirpping, because the dawn begins to brake here at about 4am (well not exactly, but the birds begin to chirp, I don't know what's wrong with them ). So my prediction about the birds was correct, I just said alongside that the FACT that your sentances were grammaticaly incorect. Was that made to lead us on? Then why was the correct answer also the only one that was grammaticaly correct.

SO again: my analises was pretty short and efficient - no philosophies...I also suspected that it could be bright in Sweden at that time, I just didn't mention it... I did however incorporated it into my theory. And the answer was correct, that is the main point. How did I do it? With so little facts? A little bit of common sense? A little bit of felling?

[forre]

Originally posted by freddie

SO again: my analises was pretty short and efficient - no philosophies...I also suspected that it could be bright in Sweden at that time, I just didn't mention it... I did however incorporated it into my theory. And the answer was correct, that is the main point. How did I do it? With so little facts? A little bit of common sense? A little bit of felling?

Of course it was. Did I say the opposite?

Btw, ppl, want another mind f...?

[freddie]

Btw, ppl, want another mind f...?

Sure, but no grammar mistakes this time

EDIT: I just remebered something. There are times when theories have to be made simply becuse there is no realistic way of knowing the actual facts. Like for instance space exploration - we can only presume that we know happens in a quasar 15 billion light years from earth. There is no way of analiticaly checking the facts. Most of this theories are (as far as we know) very detailed and well thought trough - and there is about 90% chance that they are correct. Amazing. Despite lacking any actual hands on experiance.

So sometimes it's good to theorize, eventhough you don't have all the facts at hand. Who knows... maybe you get lucky and stumble upon truth without even knowing it ... maybe you actualy have some advantage from those who have more or less reliable info on the subject, that could lure them into prejudice. A clearer vision I'd say.

[Charles]

Much of the theorizing that goes on here is just a form of entertainment, as is Tatu. Sometimes, I will see useful tidbits, and insights that I value, but I don't really expect to find any great truths here. I'll do admit that some of the issues brought up are very serious, and to some, the issues are very personal.

[russkayatatu]

So sometimes it's good to theorize, eventhough you don't have all the facts at hand. Who knows... maybe you get lucky and stumble upon truth without even knowing it ... maybe you actualy have some advantage from those who have more or less reliable info on the subject, that could lure them into prejudice. A clearer vision I'd say.

Eh, sometimes...but in this case there were so many details, so many little things that could make all the answers potentially correct. Even the "count the stars" - well, of course you could count them, even if the sun's shining: the answer would be ZERO It all depends on where forre's house is, what kind of window it is, whether she has a cold and can't hear well, whether there's a BIG MOUNTAIN BLOCKING THE SUN (which turned out to be the case ). And her own personal preferences: can she really be "enjoying" the sun? or is she be the type to "count stars"?

forre, I admit I was a little tantalized by the extra information you gave out, which seemed to make the "enjoying the sun" answer more likely...but still...see, it turned out to be incorrect. Garbage trucks, birds, stars; I saw how those could all be possible too. freddie, without reliable information in this case you WOULD just be "stumbling into it," but the situation was so specific that even added info like the time of sunrise doesn't give you much (or any) of an edge. For me there were too many factors, too many little things that could have significance (i.e., radically change the answer), so I didn't try. In this case my intuition, instincts told me nothing; the problem was WAY too specific.

May I add that that's what makes it different (I think) from tatu? Or, freddie, the 15-million-light-years-away quasars you talked about? Because there we do know more things, although it's true we don't know everything. For the quasars, we know the physical laws; for tatu, we know they are real people...it's easier to theorize. And plus, they are not entirely a problem made up by someone trying to f*ck with our minds: they involve more than one person, there's a lot at stake - money, careers, lives - quasars are not trying to be deceptive or mysterious, they just ARE, they follow natural laws, and tatu, although they are trying to be deceptive and mysterious, also follow something like natural laws. You can play something completely fake for a month, maybe, but not for over three years - there's a reason Ivan said he wanted girls that could sing, not just be on stage, because he wanted it to last, and only something that's real or approximates reality will last. So we know that something is real...the question is... what? There are still unknowns, but at least we have something to go by, there's room for analysis, although as forre points out different people's analysis of the facts can result in wildly divergent answers.

This window thing, though, was one moment in a very specific location, and even after what everyone said, I have to take your word for it that the birds were singing, cause there's no way I could be sure of that Forre, I want videos, I want pictures, I want neighbors' reports, I want ornithologists' reports...then maybe it'll be more than just your credibility Analogies are little help, even if they were analogies with other houses in Sweden at 4 in the morning and not with houses in Mexico at 3 in the morning. Ah, am I making any sense? What I wanted to say was, yes, it's a good mind f*cker, forre, but on the other hand I'm not willing to give it that much significance; it didn't teach me much, except to be careful not to jump to conclusions, which I think I already do, or try to And it teaches me to be careful of people who say it was "a very simple test," too

But still, please do give us another one! I'd like to try analyzing something else you come up with

Edit: Charles, I disagree. I don't think tatu is just entertainment. But then again, seek and you shall find, right?