The Gay Purse Theorem

I didn’t make any publications, appeared in journals etc. during my academic years but I did come up with some theorems. Not the kind which will be a part of a hypothesis, and certainly not a part of any curriculum, but the kind you come up with when the combination of sleep depravedness and a little too much scotch hits your brain. Well, I am presenting the first of them – the gay purse theorem.

It so happened that one of my close friends and I were out shopping for his significant other as a welcome-to-Lucknow gift. It was her first visit to the city, and my friend wanted to be a gentleman for a change. He didn’t want to go alone for the shopping, so he asked me to tag along. Being the cheap bastard I have always been, I agreed to go only after he promised to get me a couple of drinks at the nearby pub. Now all said and done, when a guy shops for clothes or accessories, the only thing which stops him from selecting an item is the fact that it did not fit him. Not so much for gals. So when we arrived at the ladies section of a big, posh, departmental chain store, the realization hit us. No matter what we would pick, it wouldn’t be up-to-the-mark in her eyes. We would definitely score ‘A’ for effort, but the end result would be zero. So we decided to retire to the aforementioned pub and think. Of course, we had a moment of clarity about an hour later, so we went back to the store with our new theorem.

So, what our theorem states is this – In order to see what accessory suits your better half, you try it on yourself (hopefully, not in public eyes). The gayer you look with it, the better she will look in it. Your friend cannot try it for you because she is with you, not with him. Armed with this new revelation, we went forward and tried its practical application. As my friend tried on one purse after another, I gave him the necessary comments – “Gay…Very gay…ehh, not so gay…wow that is gay…ok gay.”

Turns out that the theorem was correct. My friend later reported me with its success. Sure beats getting published in a journal any day!!

RADDI > SUBSCRIPTION = PROFIT ?

Guest post by: T.R. Ramaswami

Fantastic post retirement get rich scam – with media help! Annual newspaper subscription is Rs.149/- . That is just Rs.12/- per month. One month’s raddi is about 3 kg which is Rs.9-10 per kg depending on season. That is 27/- per month giving me a profit of 15/- . A whopping 125%! With 1000 subscriptions it will be 1000/ per day, profit 600/- , or Rs.2,19,000/- pa on an investment of 1,49,000/- Is this taxable? The paper need not reach me – the newspaperwallah will also become a raddiwallah or they can set up business right next to each other. The break-even subscription cost is Rs.324/- per year. At that price, subscription = raddi (@ Rs.9/- per kg, BEP is Rs.360/- @ Rs.10/-) and you get to read a paper free. This is raddimathics, not taught even at Harvard!
Effort – write just one cheque. But will Jayanthi Natarajan approve of all this? Solution – the newspaper publisher will pay me directly with post dated monthly cheques – no need of even printing the paper! A perfect example of a ghost-cum-havala business. Similar business already there – selling IPO abridged prospectus after stripping (financially appropriate!) application form even before issue opens. Is my scam ok, or is it like the joke of a businessman (ethnicity secret to be politically correct) who wanted to print invitations for his daughter’s marriage. Printer quote – 500 cards will cost Rs.10/- each, 1000 will be Rs.8/- each and 5000 will be Rs.6/- each. Ethnically secret man asks printer – how much to order so that it is free?!!