Hah! I laugh at your comment: Here is the "truth"

There are at least two ways you can disprove that theorem:

One is the old adage that to know that you know what you know is true knowledge. This of course precludes multiple personalities. In this instance if you pissed yourself off, you would not necessarily need to worry about where the chain of pissed off and being pissed off begins or ends. It would simply be the (existentialist) case of rights and responsibilities: you are the pissor and the pissee and therefore making the circle is complete.

Of course were you not an existentialist and perhaps a epistemological realist (as was Albert Einstein, (yes, he was Jewish, too) you would know that if you could know all the elements of pissing off and being pissed off you would foresee and be able to conclude where the chain of pissdom ran from and too.

Then there is the approach of using hermeneutics, from which this short stolen and bastardized excerpt will approach and deftly resolve:

From http://www.crown.edu/b&t/castonv/caston/principles/crn%2001.htm

HERMENEUTICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE
Suppose you're traveling to work and have an opportunity to piss off someone: boss or flunky while in traffic. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete (interpret) the element of being pissed.

1. A post modernist deconstructs pissed (killing with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist refuses to piss off someone because he sees being pissed as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeois use the north-south route and obstruct the progress of the workers in the east-west route.

3. A serious and educated Catholic refuses to be pissed because he believes he cannot understand the being pissed apart from its interpretive community and tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take being pissed too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to pissed a boss or a subordinate off, but he'll piss off someone if the car if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the idea very literally, will piss off someone and then wait for someone to tell him not to piss off someone.

6. A seminary educated evangelical preacher might look up "piss off" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: (1) something which causes anger, such as a criticism, or being stupid; (2 ) a way to demonstrate contempt for a boss. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you piss off someone, it is a place where someone is naturally pissed, so it is a good place to piss off anyone.

7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things: (a) Take another route to work that doesn't have to piss off a subordinant so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law; (b) Piss off the subordinant, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to piss off someone," wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed. Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: Rabbi Meier says: He who does not piss off someone shall not live long. Rabbi Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. Rabbi Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Rabbi ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs. Rabbi Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at pissing off a boss? Because it says, "Be still and know that I am God."

8. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes that the passage “pissing off a boss" undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself because being the progressive Jew that he was, He would never have wanted to stifle people's progress. Therefore, pissing off someone must be a textual insertion belonging entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its Sunday meetings.

9. A N.T. (New Testament) scholar notices that there is no one pissed off on Mark street but there are some on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from someone pissed off on a street no one has ever seen called "P" street. There is an excellent 300 page doctoral dissertation on the origin of these pissed off folks, and the differences between pissed off folks on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the dissertation, however; it doesn't explain the meaning of the text!

10. An OT. (Old Testament) scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "Pissed Off." For example, "Pissed" contains three enclosed areas and many line endings, whereas "Off" contains one enclosed area and two line terminations. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author on the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P.

11. Another prominent O.T. scholar notes in his commentary that pissing off someone would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly pissing off someone was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes as if it is not possible to piss off anyone at this particular point.

12. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another O.T. scholar amends the text, changing "Off" to "on". "Pissed On" is much easier to understand in context than "Pissed Off" because of the multiplicity of people in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "Pissed On" is so similar to "Pissed Off", that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus Piss Off should be interpreted to announce the existence of a restroom area. If this is true, it could indicate that both meanings are valid, thus making the thrust of the message "Piss off (AND) Piss On."

13. A "prophetic" preacher notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters P-I-S-S O-f-f (sigma-tau-omicron-pi in the Greek alphabet), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by four (the number of the world-north, south, east, and west) equals 666. Therefore, he concludes that Pissing off someone is the dreaded "mark of the beast," a harbinger of divine judgment upon the world, and must be avoided at all costs.

Lastly there is the libertarian approach, which is to simply always be pissed off because you perceive everyone else as "liberally" pissing him off

Of course, knowing how much I get pissed off at Evil, my view would be obvious!

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"