TEA TIME in L.A. THE BRONZE / 3.20-5.22.02
CORKBOARD for Wed. TEA TIME in L.A. (#35) REMINDER: 7-8PM Bronze Time

CORKBOARD for Wed. Tea Time in L.A.(#35) REMINDER 7-8PM Bronze Time / 12-1AM London
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:03 PM


= = = TUE (5/1) TEA TIME #35 INFO & LINKS = = =

EOTD BtVS Episode Of The Day: #118 6.18 - Entropy


Rhetorical verse in Shakespeare's form.


Use the Corkboard for messages to forensicpopouri or discussion before or
after Tea Time. And, yes, do post comments, suggestions, insightful quotes, . .

REMINDER: Look for TEA TIME in L.A. at the top of the Bronze threaded
forums page at 7PM Bronze Time. Tea Time lasts one hour.

EACH DAY'S CORKBOARD appears 3 hrs before Tea Time (4 PM Bronze)



* WHY I POST IN SHAKESPEAREAN SONNETS: (1) tid=48156 (2) tid=48152

* TEA TIME FAQ & INDEX: tid=67836



POSTCARDS FROM FORENSICPOPOURI (if any) will appear as 1st resp. below

you speak


END OF CORKBOARD #35 ======================================================
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 02, 2002, 4:07 PM 1 of 21

CORKBOARD #36 is up at - tid=101475

Hi JNW ( I really do know how to spell mutually, by the way )
Posted by: prunehilda - May 02, 2002, 3:43 PM 2 of 21

Although you sure couldn't tell from my last post.

I'll try to explain Nash's Theory as best I can but sometimes my head starts to spin too. Simple games are a linear chain of reasoning. Each player trys to look ahead to as many possible outcomes as they can. Checkers is such an example. Chess is another one although there are too many permutations to perform in reality so each player thinks a few moves ahead . In the end there is one winner after a finite sequence of moves.

In a simultaneous game the players are moving at the same time, unaware of their opponents moves but aware that there are other players. The players are each thinking " I think that that he thinks that I think ....". So each player trys to figure out his own best outcome based on what he thinks the other players are thinking. The circle comes to equilibrium when each player plays his own best strategy. This is not to say that equilibrium will optimize everyones situation.

I'm sure a mathematics professional could find all sorts of flaws with my pathetic attempt to explain this theory but my head just started to spin.

As to your final question- I've been pursuing FPs identity for a while now and have thought that I was close on a couple of other occasions only to find out some fact that just didn't jive with everything else. The internet is useful but limited and sometimes I'm making huge leaps based on coincidence. Again, the journey is the thing: the destination is secondary. Would I tell all? Probably not. This is just too much fun.

Posted by: Supernatural lawyer - May 02, 2002, 2:58 PM 3 of 21

How marvelous to see you! As always you have managed to put in words what my poor tired brain was unable to even grasp.

As for "cooperation and games", I agree that it has to be mutually beneficial to truly work. Whatever is beyond the Portal, may only be available for one; however, without cooperation, none of us may make it anyway. To use the simplistic pop-culture references that fit my current intellectual state, it's the difference between "Big Brother 1" (where the contestants remained loyal to each other and tried to make all subsequent moves in concert, perfectly knowing only one would win) and Survivor #1 (the law of the jungle). I would also refer to Camus v. Machiavel but that's a little out of my league <smile>.

I am one of those idealists (or realists? I am still struggling with that) who believe that a society/a group/a family cannot survive without solidarity and caring as much for the destiny of the person next to us as ours. Even if it fails, it makes the whole experience so much more fulfilling. And in the end, even if you lose, you actually "won" ... if that makes any sense. Here, I would talk about Camus for hours, but my last functioning brain cell is threatening to go on strike (like the good French worker she is <smile>). More on Camus later if any of you are interested.

As for FP's identity, I think he has given us many illuminating clues. But as JNW noted, what would be the point? Would it distract us more than help "our cause?" Like Dorothy, wouldn't we be ultimately disappointed to find out who hides behind the curtain? I am still struggling with that so all opinions are welcome!

A bit more prunehilda
Posted by: JNW - May 02, 2002, 2:16 PM 4 of 21

First, sorry for the misspelling of your name -- please forgive. Next, just a question. Given games and strategies, even if you did know who FP really was, would you tell? Is there incentive in that?

And prunehilda marvelously illustrates the flexibility of language...
Posted by: JNW - May 02, 2002, 2:14 PM 5 of 21

Wow! Now where were you when I was trying to parse this all out in my poor brain?! Explain to me (please -- I'll definitely be grateful!) the simulatneous and circular aspects of the moves and the logic. As FP noted, the illustration in the movie was not apt, but perhaps you could provide a better example? As to nature -- I had intended a different meaning -- as in the very nature of the theory (is it cooperative?). But your take on my words strikes me as an alternate path of particular interest. It suggests FP might have been right about "the cooperative nature of the Nash Equilibrium" in terms of actual nature. Hmmm...

Hi everyone!
Posted by: prunehilda - May 02, 2002, 1:53 PM 6 of 21

Hi JNW. It's a pleasure to meet you.
I see that you are discussing game theory and I have to add my 2 cents worth. My understanding is that games can be generally categorized into three different types according to the outcomes and with the understanding that all games share the common feature of interdependence. There are zero sum games where the interests of the players totally confict. Or games can be mutally negative (harmful) or mutally positive ( everyone gains something). I think the games between men and women can fall into anyone of these catagories but the important point here is that these games are not played in neutral territory. The decisions a game player makes is based on his or her circumstances, history, intelligence, needs, etc. etc. etc.

Nash's theory of equilibrium is based on games where players are making simultaneous moves in a logical circle. It really is an incomplete solution to the problem of circular reasoning in this type of game but it can be very useful in analyzing strategy.

As for cooperation in nature: it comes in the form of a symbiotic relationship. The participants (plants vs plants, animal vs plants or animals vs amimals) have evolved to an arrangement that is mutally beneficial.

Glow and SNL- I've got some ideas as to FPs identity but no clue as to the purpose of TT. Still working on it though. Keep FP talking!

And now back to the essay at hand: What kinds of public policies are most likely to improve a nation's economic performance in the global economy?

And to the "C"
Posted by: JNW - May 02, 2002, 1:29 PM 7 of 21

Quite right! I'll look for you in alternate rooms, though I'm afraid I might not be much help yet. Had a thought on graffiti the other day -- smack in the middle of other thoughts while writing on topics vastly different. It materialized, an inner voice cried out "That's it!" and then, POOF, it was gone. I've a serviceable little creature searching through the dusty file cabinets in my mind, but she's way in the back right now, and I have no idea when she'll be able to locate the disappeared file. Still, I'll let you know if she succeeds.

FP, By the way...
Posted by: JNW - May 02, 2002, 1:22 PM 8 of 21

Since I'm reading between your lines, perhaps I might suggest the same to you ... You needn't shift your strategy <g>, but of course you probably already know most ladies at social functions (tea perhaps?) do employ strategic behaviour. I have no platinum tea leaves to offer, but perhaps I might interest you in some lovely peach oolong?

Dear "C-Team", dear FP
Posted by: Supernatural lawyer - May 02, 2002, 1:08 PM 9 of 21

JNW: Good point! I truly believe that men and women just think differently. For me the end result is not the objective; the process itself is the true exciting challenge. (Oop, probably not what FP would like to hear...) But talking about stategy, we should probably all (glow, you, me,...) sometime chat on the "C" thread to establish some kind of concerted action before sonnet 154.

Glow: how nice to hear from you. Yes, I have paid some attention to the latest clues... some letters written in the sand, glass (again), the still mysterious significance of Tea Leaves, Verschip's endless ramblings about his "soul," Hollywood, accepting constraints... You will, I am sure, have all the answers when you come back! <hopeful smile>
Thank you again for your concern. My intellectual abilities are slowly coming back to normal...which is not necessarily good news...

FP: I had "hoped" you had forgotten about my sonnet! <grin> I am waiting in fear (and slight excitement) <Spike-like grin>.

Oh lord...
Posted by: JNW - May 02, 2002, 11:05 AM 10 of 21

Mathematics, formulas, theorems, the subjects I barely squeaked by in college because I never could stop wanting to know the "why?" behind the equations... All right, (mumbling as my mind spins), a question: but is Nash's Equilibrium cooperative in nature? And if we're talking about game strategy and gains and women and men, do the variables and incentives shift? After all, what the men want and view as a greater return may be very different from what the women desire. As for bars -- ever notice that the focus is always the women? The men focus on the women, and the women focus on the women with the men, and all competition revolves around ... women.

AND NOW IT'S THURSDAY IN SANTA MONICA ======================================
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 02, 2002, 3:24 AM 11 of 21

Since glow mentioned Courtney Love . . .

. . . I will mention (brag<g>) that Ms. Love's lips once touched my left ear
and her hot breath . . . . <smile>

Well, she said something to me that night Warren Beatty
was supposedly making noises about running for President
and 200 journalists from around the world had gathered to
note the event . . . and Courtney was trying to talk to all of them. <g>

. . . but I have no earthly idea what Courtney said. (People tend to
think I'm a journalist so she was probably just trying to make sure
that if I were a journalist I'd write something nice about her by
molesting my ear lobe)

As for whether Ms. Love has been Hollywoodized . . . in her case,
it might be the other way around. <g>

AS FOR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS . . . no one should think that I have
forgotten the sonnet I will write about Supernatural lawyer . . .

. . . it shall be written . . . when the prophecy has been fulfilled. <g>'


Just thought I'd stop by
Posted by: glow - May 02, 2002, 2:19 AM 12 of 21

I can't seem to stay away. After work I come to the bronze and catch up on what I've missed. First and foremost are the Tea Time threads. FP's getting closer and closer to the 154 mark and I haven't even chosen a topic yet for my sonnet. eeeeek! Plus, I'm still wrestling with IP.

I miss all of you too. <sad smile>

Fellow "C" compatriot SNL, I know I can count on you to collect the clues and relay them to me. I hope you're feeling better. <sympathetic smile>

I'd like to thank JNW for her lovely compliment last night. Blame my wonky sleep deprived mind, but I can't remember for the life of me what she said, yet I felt warm and fuzzy inside. Also, I'd like to congratulate you on composing verse in IP. I'm jealous, but in a good way. <smile>

Forensic Popouri thanks for the added info on your person. Would you say you've been hollywoodized? Courtney Love is a fine example of a "star" who's been hollywoodized, don't you agree?

A harem? <raised eyebrow> What's this about a harem? LOL.


The one, the only *glow*

Pondering . . . the fact that usually only one woman shows up at Tea Time at at time
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 8:53 PM 13 of 21

(mumbling to himself rhetorically)

The Nash equilibrium illustration in "A Beautiful Mind"
was fun . . . but not a good illustration.

A male screenwriter came up with it, of course . . .
and his male eyes came to male conclusions
that distorted the whole idea of the cooperative
nature of the Nash equilibrium.

A female screenwriter would have been more likely
to come up with a more accurate illustration . . .

. . . much more in keeping with Tea Time behavior
(if it was strategic). <g>

Of course, this is all based on horrid stereotypes of
male/female bias in competition v. cooperative situations . . .

. . . which may or may not be true in any sense . . .

. . . but likely are right on the money. <ewg>


Posted by: Supernatural lawyer - May 01, 2002, 8:37 PM 14 of 21

Sorry I "abandoned" you today! Meetings, clients calling, deadlines, briefs to write... such was my "destiny" today. (sarcasm warning) Despite what some people think <smile> I do understand contraints!

By the way, I read the sonnet you posted on the corkboard yesterday. Truly wonderful.
As for me, I am still struggling with IP. I am not sure I will ever be the good student FP wants me to be. <sad smile> As pointed out before, the fact that English is not my maternal language and that I did not go to school in an English speaking country (my mandatory readings growing up were Beaudelaire, Racine, Verlaine and Zola, not Shakespeare) is a major hurdle.
But reading your verses is a true inspiration. Thank you then for joining us. I hope you will find the new name you are looking for.

As for glow, my understanding is that she is taking the week off from Tea Time but will be back next week. She is much missed, I agree.

Glow, Supernatural Lawyer
Posted by: JNW - May 01, 2002, 8:11 PM 15 of 21

I miss you already! Hope you're both well and not too swamped with work!

Forensic Popouri
Posted by: JNW - May 01, 2002, 8:09 PM 16 of 21

As for your excellent sonnets and ending haiku, the lady retreats, for the moment, to review her forces and fortifications.

LINK TO TODAYS SONNETS (re Entropy) tid=97955
Posted by: ThePowersThatTea - May 01, 2002, 7:10 PM 17 of 21


Forensic Popouri
Posted by: JNW - May 01, 2002, 4:25 PM 18 of 21

Oh well done! And so many smiles <she says, giving a smile of her own -- a slightly lopsided tilt with best intentions>. I should be working, but I can't resist a response. Of course, I've read your argument for form & it's sound -- sound as a drum. But, you must admit, you are the authority here, and subversion of authority to create new forms, well...it holds appeal. I'm not quite to "I must create my own system or be enslaved by another's," else I'd have flounced off rather than try my hand at solid iambic. And the merit is true -- you're right. But may not constraints of form be expanded and still your goals be met? As for poetic attempts -- I'm very flattered, but I should admit, what poetic nuances there may have been were likely stolen. I tend to think in amalgamations of others' words and I long ago surrendered on the issue of authorial influence. Now back to work! <smile>

Corkboard CORRECTION . . . Yes, this is WEDNESDAY'S Corkboard <smile>
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:15 PM 19 of 21


NOTE TO "C" (and ALL) -- See verse by JNW on previous CORKBOARD (#34) tid=91078
Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:12 PM 20 of 21


And then read my comment about Tea Leaves etc.

Posted by: forensicpopouri - May 01, 2002, 4:06 PM 21 of 21

* TO JNW (and all) REGARDING iambic pentameter . . . and more specifically
Shakespearean sonnets . . . I've said this before I'm sure <smile> . . . but I have specific
(culturally significant) reasons for focusing (specifically) on posting in formal verse.

Since JNW was quite poetic today <serious smile> . . . I would like to remind everyone
(yet one more time<smile>) to read my four sonnet sequence WHY I POST IN RHETORICAL VERSE
. . . and note (particularly) my statement that what my intent is not "poetry" proper . . .but rather
constrained communication.

I will not attempt here (there isn't time <smile) to give a full essay explanation of what value
this is (theoretically) to produce . . . but it is primarily this value that I seek in investing my attention
to this creative project.

(ONE) BOTTOM LINE: <serious smile> I very much want all of you to attempt to put
your straightforward (Anya-like<smile>) thoughts into rhetorical verse form
. . . before 154. <smile>

Now . . .I will devote the next couple of hours to writing a 4 sonnet sequence about "Entropy."
(And will post link to it here . . . Unless I fail. <smile>)

Until Tea Time . . .

* P.S. If anyone saw Alison Krauss on PBS recently (with her perfect hair and
dress. . . and smile) . . . and know what she "normally "looks like <g> . . . THEN you
will know what Hollywoodization means. <smile>