The theory of INSANITY

This should have been my first post, hovering over insanity...

I call this the insanity theory, it was developed over an SMS conversation with a friend, during which i proved that she was insane.

The theory is like this, everything can be insane and nothing is insane, we call what we don't understand as insane. Now the first argument that will be thrown at me is that a doctor in a mental hospital understands the patient but the doctor is not insane. Well there is a difference that i would like to show that being, a doctor does not understand an insane patient he only cures him, he uses, shocks, medicines etc... but does not understand the patient in fact what the doctor does is in effect makes the patient understand him, now if a person tries to understand an insane person, and is successful in doing so that person will buy the insane persons thoughts and ideas and will act accordingly, so in effect in respect to his yesterday, his today will be insane, so at the end of the day if i end up calling my self insane then what is insane? A persons yesterday will call a persons today insane and vice versa, so insanity is relative like everything else, insanity is not absolute there is nothing that defines a person to be insane, i will substantiate this with an example that is very close to my heart. GOOGLE, when a person walks into the Google Head Office one would find scooters and lava lamps, the company was once termed as insane for employing such things, soon Google came out with their Public issue, it was priced at around 400$ the company today its share price is roughly 505$ and the companies turn over for the last three months is around 802 bn$ the bottom line is that they are making a hell of a lot of money, now look at the change, the same lava lamps and scooters are now called things that inspire innovation, not insane.

So if i don't understand you I can think you are insane and if you don't understand me you are free to call me the same. Now a question is that, why do i refer to my self as insane, well the answer is quite simple, because i want to believe that i don't understand myself and so at times i don't, apart from the fact that it gives you a good excuse to do all sorts of stupidity. So well now that i have established that i am insane, i can use the defense of insanity (84 IPC) and do anything i want to;-).

Newton's 1st law of emotion

The title is not a typo. Newton's 1st law of motion states that,

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Similarly newtons 1st law of emothin states that

"a person who is happy tends to stay happy and a person who is sad tends to stay sad unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Now as such this is more or less self explinatory, but well this is only slightly more complicated than physics.

Assuming the law is true, and a persons emotions change, according to the law, there has to be a stimulant. Without a stimulant there will be no change, so if a person seems slighly off, and you ask them what's the matter. The most common and obvious answer will be 'nothin', and you know the person is definately lying.

Another tricky situation is when a person is behaving in an odd manner, and you may be one of the reasons but your actions are not strong enough, then its time to realixe that there at otehr forces at work and no matter what you do unless and untill the other force is balanced none of your actions will prove to be fruitfull.

Thats all folks.

The non-quantized circles

This is known as the non quantized circle theory. Its like this, as the figure shows a large number of concentric circles, theses circles in the figure are quantized but well imagine that they are not, they are non quantized and a circle can be anywhere at any distance from the center. Now imagine that a person is standing at the center, right where that tiny little black dot is, and everyone you know, meet or even see gets plotted somewhere on the this plane of the circles. There are two aspects of the plotting, one is obviously the magnitude, and the other is the angle. The magnitude is more or less self explanatory, the more some one knows you the closer that person will be plotted. The capacity in which a person knows another is what defines the angle, one person may be plotted on one side of the circle and another may be plotted on the diametrically opposite side of the same circle, which would mean that two people are equally close to the person in question but in different capacities. Now man is like pen, with a cap. Now if one person sees the person in the center as a round sided pen the other may see the small little thing that is there on the pen to hold the pen in ones pocket. So its the same person but two different people will see two very different things of that same person. Now you cant say that the person is ever changing unless and until he turns and shows people on one side the other side. OK. So all this is very fine, but whats the use, see now the whole trouble arises that people get plotted but are not static. They can move, but yes there are limitations that can be placed on the movements on these people, but when people are closer to the circle when they move they can very easily see things that they might not have been able to see before, some people, very few as far as i believe, are like pens without their caps, they are uniform, no matter which side you see them from they will be the same. Most people have differences in their sides, so when a person who matters sees something that one has not seen before there are two options in front of the person.
a) accept the presence of the other side and either defend it or try some thing along those lines.

b) the other option is, go to the market and but another cap, and put it on in such a way that only the moving person sees what he wants to, and no one sees any change.
I understand that this is getting very long, but well this is some thing like a conclusion;

It is often easier to take path (b) and (a) might seem like a path with a lot of explanation, but i am saying this out of personal experience that (a) is the better the safer path. Another thing that is very nice to have is some one who is plotted on an oscillatory circle just outside the dot, like i have my dog, who is running around on that path, sees everything there is to see.

Life isn't fair, if it were it'd be boring

Every now and then we complain that life is not fair, but if actually sit and think about it, well if life were fair, would it be worth living? I think not. If life were fair, every individual would be bestowed with the same qualities, the same features and the same potential, then well we would not be individuals anymore, men would be like bots. There would be no individuality and life would be sooo boring. As it is well known that change is the spice of life, if life was fair to you it would be fair to your neighbour as well and well then your neighbour would not be your neighbour but he would be you, and that is not only boring can even get very scary. So be glad that life is not fair and enjoy the variations of it cause if they are not there life wont be life at all.