Forum:Why didn't they make items fair?: Difference between revisions

All right, here's how it goes.  Item is derived from the Latin phrase itimus which can also be translated in Sanskrit to mean "that which cannot be bought using cows."  So there we have it; we can't trade cows for items.  How does that help?  I'm glad you asked.  You see, Otto von Bismark once explained to me the economic fluctuations of the secondary cow market and namely the problems he ran into while trying to emancipate Luxembourg from the pan-tyrannical rule of El Cid.  You see, El Cid didn't want to take the cows, but all Otto could offer besides that were some items.  Now, this may not seem like a problem, but then I was reminded that Galileo's fifth law of transitivity states that if one thing is refused for a personal reason even thought it satisfies the value of the trade, then it is of equal value to any other thing accepted in that trade or also consequently refused for  personal reasons.  Therefore, because the only thing El Cid had against the cows was that he was waccophobia (fear of cows), accepting the items would mean that they were of the same value as the cows and therefore could be bought using cows.  This would make the Sanskrit meaningless and thus, as predicted by the Lost Dialogue of Plate, make the use of geese as messengers obsolete.  Now, Otto von Bismark relied heavily of the goose trade, so he had no choice but to manufacture a higher value on the cows.  So there you have it.  That's why items can't be balanced.  [[User:13375poolR|13375poolR]] ([[User talk:13375poolR|talk]]) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)