Sick Kids
Say a little prayer for the kids and me today. They are both really sick with high temperatures, Rachel is coughing and has lost her voice and Sam is vomiting. This is the first time that he has ever been sick, so he is especially miserable and confused.
Thanks, tina.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
P.I.E. The Later Years...
Trouble makers, trouble makers all of you....
On 2/16/07, Sarah Fournier wrote:
Jon,
You are almost done your first year in Post Secondary education.
Ask MOm about the P.I.E program...
oxoxox ALL!
On Thursday, March 1, 2007, Matthew Fournier wrote:
Yes, the pie. And don't let her give you any legalese mumbo jumbo.
On Thursday, March 1, 2007, Sarah Fournier wrote:
Jonathon,
If you have any difficulties figuring out the administration and application for this program, feel free to contact myself or matthew. we will help you out with the schematics.
Cheers!
OXOXO
s
Matthew Fournier to Sarah, Jon Mar 1
For a fee. Of pie.
Sarah Fournier to Matthew, Jon, Mar 1
I call for a raspberry one... that is of course jon is you want our assisting services...
I've waive the applicable gst
Trouble makers, trouble makers all of you....
On 2/16/07, Sarah Fournier wrote:
Jon,
You are almost done your first year in Post Secondary education.
Ask MOm about the P.I.E program...
oxoxox ALL!
On Thursday, March 1, 2007, Matthew Fournier wrote:
Yes, the pie. And don't let her give you any legalese mumbo jumbo.
On Thursday, March 1, 2007, Sarah Fournier wrote:
Jonathon,
If you have any difficulties figuring out the administration and application for this program, feel free to contact myself or matthew. we will help you out with the schematics.
Cheers!
OXOXO
s
Matthew Fournier to Sarah, Jon Mar 1
For a fee. Of pie.
Sarah Fournier to Matthew, Jon, Mar 1
I call for a raspberry one... that is of course jon is you want our assisting services...
I've waive the applicable gst
P.I.E Part Four
After this, I suppose anything is possible....
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:30:28 -0400
From: Peter Fournier
Organization: Samalander
To: Catherine Fernyer,Matthew Fournier
Subject: PIE dispute: potential intervention by Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and
Ra LLC
Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC have been requested by the court to stand in as "Friends of the Court" in the potential dispute relating to the Postsecondary Incentive Entitlement (PIE) program.
We are acting as friends of a lower court in that the court does not wish to have this case brought before it and to have the court arrive at a decision. This lower court does not feel that any resolution is possible under Canadian law.
To clarify the courts position in this matter we wish to point out that the dispute is in fact resolvable under a large number of statutes, but that any resolution based any one statute would be in conflict with another statute. This presents the Canadian legal system with the potential danger of infinite recursion (actually in this case, recourse) to the Supreme Court. To be precise, this lower court sees a danger of the case reaching the Supreme Court, being decided, and then being retried starting in a lower court, arguments being based on a different statute, eventually reaching the Supreme Court and being decided by that body wholly in contradiction to the first decision, and the process repeating itself all over again.
Gentlemen and gentlewomen, law is not designed to resolve cases such as this! Not only is the case complex in the extreme, but it seems more than society can demand of the Supreme Justices to remain impartial when the evidence submitted to the court are freshly baked apple, peach, rhubard, rasberry and pecan pies! The court risks conveying an impression of aloss of impartiality, especially if ( as is likely) during the discovery procedure the ddisputed award mysteriously disappears! We beg you, do not expose the Canadian people to a collapse of the very foundations and principles of law in our land!.
Therefore, Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC wish to suggest at this point that perhaps there is some way of mediating the dispute before it is brought before the courts. To that end, we wish to raise the following point which, we earnestly believe, might raise questions in the disputants minds of the validity of their repsective cases, and perhaps make them more amenable to an itermediary settlement that falls beween "a butter tart, no raisins" and "35.25 pies".
Firstly, the PIE should realize that any mathematical system that allows for the determination of an entitlement to be "a butter tart without raisins" is indeed a complete, new and self-contained mathematical system in of itself. Furthermore, please note that no mathematical system can prove itself to be true due to the limitations imposed upon itself by it's own axioms (see "Goedel, Escher and Bach" for a layman's exploration of this disturbing mathematical fact).
Therefore, due to the fact that the initial award of ten (10) pies to Sarah Fournier seems to have involved few if any calculations and that the award of a "butter tart, no raisins" and "shipping not included" does seem to involve extensive calculations in a completely new mathematical system (since no known mathematical system or engine, mechanical or electrical, at this point of civilization's total history and apprehension of the cosmic ALL), the court is likely to focuss, each time the case is brought before it, on the precise methodoly and the actual axiomatic foundations of the calculations allowing such a result. This the court is manifestly not qualified to do, yet will manifestly try to do.
Extensive consultation with the leading mathematical minds currently active lead us to believe that the end result of this effort of the court will be an elaboration of the PIE mathematics that leads to a result in which, whatever the reward to Matthew or Sarah Fournier, individually or combined, that self same award will also be owed to the justices on the bench.
However, these best mathematical minds have also indicated that said award will owed by each plaintiff individually to the court. The cumulative total owed to the court will be therefore, potentially, 9 justices x 3 plaintiffs x 35.25 pies.
We furhther advise you that our mathematical consulters in this matter have indicated that they will demand to be paid in the currency established by the decision (that is the justices received pies, therefore they should be paid in pies) and that they can prove, indisputably, that the unit of currency thus established is in fact the pie (being a 10 inch pie made of rasberry, apple, rhubard, peach or pecan).
Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC cannnot but agree with the logic of this position and will therefore demand equal treatement and request that they be paid for their services as friends of the court in the same currency!
In conclusion, Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, as friends of the court, wish the plaintiffs to *cease *all negotiations *immediately *and bring this matter to the attention of the courts immediately.
Yours, truly!
Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC
PS: There was a "secondly" but none of the partners involved in this "friend of the court" request seems capable of remembering what the substance of the "secondly" might of been.
PPS: One of the partners has suggested that the "secondly" may have been related to the total world supply of fruit, but that seems farfetched.
PPPS: After discussion with one of the mathematical consulters, it seems he can explain what the "secondly" was about, but demands to be paid in advance.
PPPPS: You may have heard on the news that the senior partner of Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, now Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, has just sold his interest in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC and has left a forwarding address beleived to be a village in the Okanagan. This developement will not affect Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC role as friend of the court.
PPPPPS: The remaining partners in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC wish to inquire as to the adequacy of your stock of cinnamon. Do you, the plaintiffs have enough cinnamon? We realize that "enough" is perhaps a bit imprecise, but you know what we mean.
PPPPPPS: One of our mathematical consulters, this one with an additonnal qualification in physics, has just called and demanded to know if we are all aware of Schrodinger's work on pie. Apparently the uncertainty introduced by our questions may have some sort of impact on cats, if only we would care to notice. The impact is, apparently, related to the irrational certainty of pie despite the state of any individual cat. Do you, the plaintiffs, have any idea of what he is talking about?
PPPPPPPS: An author has called us claiming damages for theft of intellectual property. Apparently "Discworld" is a pie. It's essence is pie. We have no idea what he is talking about.
--
Peter Fournier
After this, I suppose anything is possible....
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:30:28 -0400
From: Peter Fournier
Organization: Samalander
To: Catherine Fernyer
Subject: PIE dispute: potential intervention by Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and
Ra LLC
Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC have been requested by the court to stand in as "Friends of the Court" in the potential dispute relating to the Postsecondary Incentive Entitlement (PIE) program.
We are acting as friends of a lower court in that the court does not wish to have this case brought before it and to have the court arrive at a decision. This lower court does not feel that any resolution is possible under Canadian law.
To clarify the courts position in this matter we wish to point out that the dispute is in fact resolvable under a large number of statutes, but that any resolution based any one statute would be in conflict with another statute. This presents the Canadian legal system with the potential danger of infinite recursion (actually in this case, recourse) to the Supreme Court. To be precise, this lower court sees a danger of the case reaching the Supreme Court, being decided, and then being retried starting in a lower court, arguments being based on a different statute, eventually reaching the Supreme Court and being decided by that body wholly in contradiction to the first decision, and the process repeating itself all over again.
Gentlemen and gentlewomen, law is not designed to resolve cases such as this! Not only is the case complex in the extreme, but it seems more than society can demand of the Supreme Justices to remain impartial when the evidence submitted to the court are freshly baked apple, peach, rhubard, rasberry and pecan pies! The court risks conveying an impression of aloss of impartiality, especially if ( as is likely) during the discovery procedure the ddisputed award mysteriously disappears! We beg you, do not expose the Canadian people to a collapse of the very foundations and principles of law in our land!.
Therefore, Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC wish to suggest at this point that perhaps there is some way of mediating the dispute before it is brought before the courts. To that end, we wish to raise the following point which, we earnestly believe, might raise questions in the disputants minds of the validity of their repsective cases, and perhaps make them more amenable to an itermediary settlement that falls beween "a butter tart, no raisins" and "35.25 pies".
Firstly, the PIE should realize that any mathematical system that allows for the determination of an entitlement to be "a butter tart without raisins" is indeed a complete, new and self-contained mathematical system in of itself. Furthermore, please note that no mathematical system can prove itself to be true due to the limitations imposed upon itself by it's own axioms (see "Goedel, Escher and Bach" for a layman's exploration of this disturbing mathematical fact).
Therefore, due to the fact that the initial award of ten (10) pies to Sarah Fournier seems to have involved few if any calculations and that the award of a "butter tart, no raisins" and "shipping not included" does seem to involve extensive calculations in a completely new mathematical system (since no known mathematical system or engine, mechanical or electrical, at this point of civilization's total history and apprehension of the cosmic ALL), the court is likely to focuss, each time the case is brought before it, on the precise methodoly and the actual axiomatic foundations of the calculations allowing such a result. This the court is manifestly not qualified to do, yet will manifestly try to do.
Extensive consultation with the leading mathematical minds currently active lead us to believe that the end result of this effort of the court will be an elaboration of the PIE mathematics that leads to a result in which, whatever the reward to Matthew or Sarah Fournier, individually or combined, that self same award will also be owed to the justices on the bench.
However, these best mathematical minds have also indicated that said award will owed by each plaintiff individually to the court. The cumulative total owed to the court will be therefore, potentially, 9 justices x 3 plaintiffs x 35.25 pies.
We furhther advise you that our mathematical consulters in this matter have indicated that they will demand to be paid in the currency established by the decision (that is the justices received pies, therefore they should be paid in pies) and that they can prove, indisputably, that the unit of currency thus established is in fact the pie (being a 10 inch pie made of rasberry, apple, rhubard, peach or pecan).
Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC cannnot but agree with the logic of this position and will therefore demand equal treatement and request that they be paid for their services as friends of the court in the same currency!
In conclusion, Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, as friends of the court, wish the plaintiffs to *cease *all negotiations *immediately *and bring this matter to the attention of the courts immediately.
Yours, truly!
Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC
PS: There was a "secondly" but none of the partners involved in this "friend of the court" request seems capable of remembering what the substance of the "secondly" might of been.
PPS: One of the partners has suggested that the "secondly" may have been related to the total world supply of fruit, but that seems farfetched.
PPPS: After discussion with one of the mathematical consulters, it seems he can explain what the "secondly" was about, but demands to be paid in advance.
PPPPS: You may have heard on the news that the senior partner of Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, now Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, has just sold his interest in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC and has left a forwarding address beleived to be a village in the Okanagan. This developement will not affect Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC role as friend of the court.
PPPPPS: The remaining partners in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC wish to inquire as to the adequacy of your stock of cinnamon. Do you, the plaintiffs have enough cinnamon? We realize that "enough" is perhaps a bit imprecise, but you know what we mean.
PPPPPPS: One of our mathematical consulters, this one with an additonnal qualification in physics, has just called and demanded to know if we are all aware of Schrodinger's work on pie. Apparently the uncertainty introduced by our questions may have some sort of impact on cats, if only we would care to notice. The impact is, apparently, related to the irrational certainty of pie despite the state of any individual cat. Do you, the plaintiffs, have any idea of what he is talking about?
PPPPPPPS: An author has called us claiming damages for theft of intellectual property. Apparently "Discworld" is a pie. It's essence is pie. We have no idea what he is talking about.
--
Peter Fournier
P.I.E. Part Three
And the debate raged on....
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:10:09 -0400
To: Catherine Fournier
From: "mattfour"
Subject: Re: A small concern
Dear Mrs Baker,
This is a reply to your email of Sep. 16, concerning file #743458587.
We are extremely dissapointed with the reply we received on Sep 16. There are several
issues we must bring to your attention.
Firstly, we sent our request to the Parental Commitee, which is a much higher
authority than the PIE Centre. We, who fight for the well being of children and young
adults everywhere, feel it is unjust for our objections to be treated as if they are of no concern to the all knowing, all seeing, all judging Parental Commitee.
Secondly, the selection criteria quoted in your last email were not made known to the student, Matthew Fournier, before his departure to University. This is entirely
unnacceptable as it shows favoritism towards individuals, namely one Sarah Fournier, who was given this information without having requested it. We do not entirely understand why such a two-tier system is in place within your organization, but we assure you that we at the Counter-Injustice Brotherhood will investigate the matter fully in order to root out any corruption and save future young adults from the sufferings that Matthew Fournier has been through. With this in mind, we will be sending a delegation to your headquarters to investigate. The delegation will consist of Mr and Mrs Konkal, and their daughter Rachel, who is an expert taste-tester. We ask you to give them your full co-operation, so that we may resolve this matter expeditiously.
Thirdly, we happen to know that you are currently harbouring two or three men and
boys, named Andrew, Jonathon and Robert, who are consistently given neutronium bars and other essentials that Matthew is denied. Although we are sure you will be able to
present us with another "complex formula" to explain this, we have instructed our
delegation to investigate this matter as well. We shall keep you informed as to the
proceedings.
Finally, since you have not yet fully resolved all the issues and conflicts in ths matter, we are forced to maintain our demand of 35.25 pies for Matthew Fournier, as outlined in our last email.
Long live the victorious Counter-Injustice Brotherhood.
And the debate raged on....
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:10:09 -0400
To: Catherine Fournier
From: "mattfour"
Subject: Re: A small concern
Dear Mrs Baker,
This is a reply to your email of Sep. 16, concerning file #743458587.
We are extremely dissapointed with the reply we received on Sep 16. There are several
issues we must bring to your attention.
Firstly, we sent our request to the Parental Commitee, which is a much higher
authority than the PIE Centre. We, who fight for the well being of children and young
adults everywhere, feel it is unjust for our objections to be treated as if they are of no concern to the all knowing, all seeing, all judging Parental Commitee.
Secondly, the selection criteria quoted in your last email were not made known to the student, Matthew Fournier, before his departure to University. This is entirely
unnacceptable as it shows favoritism towards individuals, namely one Sarah Fournier, who was given this information without having requested it. We do not entirely understand why such a two-tier system is in place within your organization, but we assure you that we at the Counter-Injustice Brotherhood will investigate the matter fully in order to root out any corruption and save future young adults from the sufferings that Matthew Fournier has been through. With this in mind, we will be sending a delegation to your headquarters to investigate. The delegation will consist of Mr and Mrs Konkal, and their daughter Rachel, who is an expert taste-tester. We ask you to give them your full co-operation, so that we may resolve this matter expeditiously.
Thirdly, we happen to know that you are currently harbouring two or three men and
boys, named Andrew, Jonathon and Robert, who are consistently given neutronium bars and other essentials that Matthew is denied. Although we are sure you will be able to
present us with another "complex formula" to explain this, we have instructed our
delegation to investigate this matter as well. We shall keep you informed as to the
proceedings.
Finally, since you have not yet fully resolved all the issues and conflicts in ths matter, we are forced to maintain our demand of 35.25 pies for Matthew Fournier, as outlined in our last email.
Long live the victorious Counter-Injustice Brotherhood.
P.I.E Part Two.
Oh, yes, there was more....
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:42:58 -0400
To: "mattfour"
From: Catherine Fournier
Subject: Re: A small concern
Dear M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood;
Thank you for your letter of 13 September on behalf of Matthew Fournier.
We must point out that the nature of PIE (Postsecondary Incentive Entitlement) has been mis-understood. Not all candidates are equally eligible for PIE.
Entitlement is calculated through a complex formula using a variety of important factors including;
1. The number of times the applicant calls home.
2. Distance from home, and therefore the applicant's easy access to home-cooking items.
3. Sex. It is presumed that girls already know how to make home-baked goods. Girls are therefore given extra "weight" in the calculation since though they could provide this incentive for themselves and others, they are encouraged to concentrate on other educational matters.
4. Race. Similarly, it is presumed that those of European descent already know how to make the aforementioned baked goods. Caucasians therefore also gain "weight" in this calculation.
We are happy to report that this last consideration makes you eligible for an award from PIE. Your award amount consists of one (1) butter tart without raisins. Please be advised that shipping is not included in this award.
If you wish to discuss or appeal this result, you may contact our Appeals Committee. Be advised however that this committee meets on an irregular basis and your existing award may rot in the meantime. Should you decide to pursue an appeal, please quote this File Number: 743458587 in all further correspondence.
Yours from the Pie Centre;
Katie Baker
3.1415926535897932 Baker's Circle
Theovenis, ON
E-mail: no_way@youmustbekidding.com
Web: http://www.youmustbekidding.com
Oh, yes, there was more....
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:42:58 -0400
To: "mattfour"
From: Catherine Fournier
Subject: Re: A small concern
Dear M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood;
Thank you for your letter of 13 September on behalf of Matthew Fournier.
We must point out that the nature of PIE (Postsecondary Incentive Entitlement) has been mis-understood. Not all candidates are equally eligible for PIE.
Entitlement is calculated through a complex formula using a variety of important factors including;
1. The number of times the applicant calls home.
2. Distance from home, and therefore the applicant's easy access to home-cooking items.
3. Sex. It is presumed that girls already know how to make home-baked goods. Girls are therefore given extra "weight" in the calculation since though they could provide this incentive for themselves and others, they are encouraged to concentrate on other educational matters.
4. Race. Similarly, it is presumed that those of European descent already know how to make the aforementioned baked goods. Caucasians therefore also gain "weight" in this calculation.
We are happy to report that this last consideration makes you eligible for an award from PIE. Your award amount consists of one (1) butter tart without raisins. Please be advised that shipping is not included in this award.
If you wish to discuss or appeal this result, you may contact our Appeals Committee. Be advised however that this committee meets on an irregular basis and your existing award may rot in the meantime. Should you decide to pursue an appeal, please quote this File Number: 743458587 in all further correspondence.
Yours from the Pie Centre;
Katie Baker
3.1415926535897932 Baker's Circle
Theovenis, ON
E-mail: no_way@youmustbekidding.com
Web: http://www.youmustbekidding.com
P.I. E.
In the interests of posterity, I am posting more funny emails, this series dealing with the recently revived P.I.E. debate....
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:35:54 -0400
To: Catherine Fournier
From: "mattfour"
Subject: A small concern
Dear Mrs. Fournier,
We have it from a reliable source (Sarah) that you are in agreement with said source to pay him/her a balance of 10 pies for every year spent in post-secondary education.
Because of the fact that in the past you have claimed to love all your children equally,we at the M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood feel that it is within our mandate to ensure the same benefits for all of your offspring.
Seeing as on Matthew Fournier, your most beloved son, has already gained 2 years of
post-secondary education, and is starting his third, we are forced to demand that you
furnish him with 30 pies, plus interest, for a total of 35.25 pies to date.
Upon contacting Mr. M. Fournier, we learned that he is most distressed at this
oversight, and asks for 7 peach, 7 raspberry, 7 pecan, 7 rubard and 7.25 apple pies.
Please be expeditious in the fulfillment of your duty, as your interest payments will
become increasingly difficult to maintain. Also, because of your tardiness in this
affair, your interest payments may begin to encompass other goods such as black forest
cake, baked alaska, and lemony wet stuff, and most probably neutronium bars.
Thank you for your time,
M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood
"Let all have their pies, and eat them too"
In the interests of posterity, I am posting more funny emails, this series dealing with the recently revived P.I.E. debate....
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:35:54 -0400
To: Catherine Fournier
From: "mattfour"
Subject: A small concern
Dear Mrs. Fournier,
We have it from a reliable source (Sarah) that you are in agreement with said source to pay him/her a balance of 10 pies for every year spent in post-secondary education.
Because of the fact that in the past you have claimed to love all your children equally,we at the M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood feel that it is within our mandate to ensure the same benefits for all of your offspring.
Seeing as on Matthew Fournier, your most beloved son, has already gained 2 years of
post-secondary education, and is starting his third, we are forced to demand that you
furnish him with 30 pies, plus interest, for a total of 35.25 pies to date.
Upon contacting Mr. M. Fournier, we learned that he is most distressed at this
oversight, and asks for 7 peach, 7 raspberry, 7 pecan, 7 rubard and 7.25 apple pies.
Please be expeditious in the fulfillment of your duty, as your interest payments will
become increasingly difficult to maintain. Also, because of your tardiness in this
affair, your interest payments may begin to encompass other goods such as black forest
cake, baked alaska, and lemony wet stuff, and most probably neutronium bars.
Thank you for your time,
M.F. Counter-Injustice Brotherhood
"Let all have their pies, and eat them too"
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Flying Alarm Clock.This digital alarm clock launches a rotor into the air that flies around the room as the alarm sounds, flying up to 9' in the air, and will not cease ringing until the rotor is returned to the alarm clock base, compelling even the most stubborn sleepers to get out of bed on time. The alarm clock has a continuous snooze function that rings every seven minutes for an entire hour, an easy to read LCD, and a six-button control panel for ease of programming. 3 3/4" H x 5 1/2" Diam. (7 oz.)
Item 73755 ................... $39.95 Available for Immediate Shipment.
Go get it, you know you what to. Go ahead, do it, do it, doit, doit, doit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
