Happiness or a ham sandwich?

Lemme think about that some more, Lapsus

I'll have to think on that one too...my father used to joke and say a "sam hamwich and a mass of glilk."

I wanna know how nothing got into the mix, in the first place?

So, a ham sandwich is nothing?

Ham is nothing without cheese.

OIC

Nothing interferes with my enjoyment of a good joke. And that really pisses me off. How dare he interfere?

so - i asked the dogs, and they said happiness IS a ham sandwich. sooooo, eternal happiness would be an endless supply of ham sandwiches. Can't lose either way.

Yeh, but Colorbook had it right. You need cheese with that. (I prefer an aged Swiss or a good Provolone.)

Not to mention a decent mustard and perhaps a leaf of lettuce or sprouts, maybe a tomato slice or two. Now we are reaching perfection.

Swiss cheese and tomato are perfect.

OK, tomato is good but, for me, skip the lettuce. Also, it has to be on dark rye or pupernickle. A good Dijon mustard pls.

welcome to the nut house Lapsus!

Merry Andrew...you have great taste in making ham sandwiches...I don't like lettuce on my sandwich either.

We still haven't answered Lapsus question. Which is better, eternal happiness or a ham sandwich?

I guess it depends on how hungry you are.

So, you're saying that ham alone is, what?, chopped liver?

With this crowd, Roger, you shouldn't say 'chopped liver.' It's pate, if you please.

Note- javascript must not have the not equal to sign. Whenever I write it it shows up as !=.


1. Happiness = a ham sandwhich
2. Happiness != a ham sandwhich

3. If you eat a ham sandwhich, then you are happy

4. If you are happy, then you eat a ham sandwhich

5. nothing is better than a ham sandwhich.

6. nothing is better than happiness.



Let's find out which of these is true.

I don't like ham, but I am happy. Therefore, Happiness != a ham sandwhich - 1 is false and 2 is true. That also means that 4 is false - I am happy, but I do not eat a ham sandwhich.

The answer would be 3 - If you eat a ham sandwhich, then you are happy. [But ham sandwhiches are not -required- for happiness.] But I would not be happy If I ate a ham sandwhich. So I guess it is not 3. If modified to say "If you eat a ham sandwhich, you may or may not be happy," then statement 3. would be true.

I guess I can only go with 2. that happiness != a ham sandwhich, therefore I should avoid ham sanwhiches at all costs.

I'm going to ignore # 5. and # 6. because nothing is sort of a doube entendre.

But kind of curve does '! = a ' throw into the mix? It's not really a 'ham sandwich' is it? It's 'a ham sandwich'. This changes all the formulas parameters, this statement implies time.
One ham sandwich, mind you it doesn't specify size............, theoretically a sandwich couldn't be eternal, could it? hmmmmmm
Then, there is the matter of happiness, but not happiness alone, but '! happiness'. Does the exlamation point mean super happpiness, if you blink you'll miss it happiness?

Actually, I just realized anything is better than happiness. I mean anything is better than nothing, right? So if nothing is better than happiness, then anything is better than that.