And they say Americans lack math and analysis skills.
(Though I could swear there was a 12% overlap between Tricks ‘n Shit.)
What you have done, sir is SCIENCE.
The kind of SCIENCE, unfortunatly, that releases dark gods into our world, but you tried.
The Great Old One’s internet is down right now, so I’ll thank you in their stead.
“(Though I could swear there was a 12% overlap between Tricks ‘n Shit.)”
Naw, dawg. Bitches AIN’T shit, but they hoes AND tricks.
You know, you think you’d give Dr. Folds some credit on that last one there, Mr. Sims.
Too funny.
I notice a critical flaw in Figure 4-A. The figure contradicts Dr. Dre’s (PhD) treatise entitled ‘Bitches ain’t shit’, in it is stated that “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”. While you have correctly shown that ‘Bitches’ and ‘Shit’ are two discrete groups (i.e. that “Bitches ain’t shit”), you have incorrectly shown the class of “bitches” as existing partially outside of the groups “tricks” and “hoes”. The correct formulation of the theory would have “bitches” as the intersection of the two classes, with no section outlying. Keep in mind, bitches ain’t shit but hoes AND (not and/or) tricks.
who says Venn diagrams aren’t useful tools?
Wow… that should be album cover artwork right there.
BRILLIANT!
I must agree with Josh. The diagram in Fig. 4-A suggests that some bitches are neither hoes NOR tricks, a logical impossibility.
Seems your risk paid off.
Is there nothing you can’t explain, illustrate, or simplify? You continue to entertain and amuse me – DON’T EVER STOP.
Clarence and Josh correctly identify one way 4-A could be wrong. There’s one other way. It could also be the case that all hoes are tricks AND all tricks are hoes AND all hoes are bitches AND all tricks are bitches. Under this interpretation of the theory, hoes = tricks = bitches. A diagram for this interpretation could be represented by three sets of the same size stacked on top of one another. You could show the hoes on top of the tricks and the tricks on top of the bitches, or use whatever other stacking order you might prefer.
тхиаго, I think your diagram is wrong since it shows that bitches are shit.
Better than I expected. I especially enjoyed #1.
I hope this is a series.
All of you are wrong.
It’s all shit, ie., shit is congruent with the universe under discussion. Within the universe of shit, _all_ bitches must be hos or tricks, because they ain’t shit but that. Put another way, within the context of bitches, there “ain’t shit,” ie., there is nothing, that is not either a ho or a trick.
However, the listener is left to decide, based on their own life experience, whether it is possible for a bitch to be both a ho and a trick. Accordingly, I don’t think we have enough information, just in the statement, to draw a complete diagram.
тхиаго that chart puts bitches in the shit; that just is not right.
a clear misunderstanding of Dr. Dre’s treatise
so humbling is Josh’s genius that I dare not offer praise nor comment
Finally a use for science that we can all get behind!
Thats great!
I hope they explain the paradox of how pimpin’ sure ain’t easy but it sure ain’t hard next.
i have to imagine Jay-Z and Public Enemy can be mined for inclusion in this poster display.
hate you you damn asshole…hgoply you die with no bitches in your crappy hole
This is the best thing.
I want a full-size poster of the last one. Nay, need.
I have always been a fan of the Dre/Snoop Bitches to Money Corrolary:
If: Life ain’t nothing but bitches and money
And: Bitches ain’t nothing but hos and tricks
[Where: Hos and tricks = money]
Then: Life ain’t nothing but money.
This made me laugh. Nice piece!
Best post ever?
YES.
Re: some of the comments
Only internetcomicbookgeeks would seriously debate the diagram, thus sucking all the fun out of it.
Figure 4a should have only two circles: hoes and tricks. (The lyrics are unspecific, but the circles are probably overlapping to some degree.) Bitches is defined by the union (not the intersection, as Josh suggests) of these circles.
gtfo! really?
I am most impressed, sir. I hope that in later years, you will perform a flow chart for what is and is not “Gangsta”. If you are interested in broaching such a study, you should refer to the seminal classic “Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta” post haste.
These are wonderful, but I don’t think any of the posts sucessfully communicate the misunderstanding in play here.
Dre clearly meant bitches are nothing other than hoes and tricks. Bitches should fall into no other category, probably not even being solely identified as bitches. I do agree that hoage and trickage are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Impressive. I’d like to try your Wu-Tang style.
Let’s begin then.
…Heh, he left out the one listing all 99 problems that “Bitch” has no relationship to.
Hoes = farming/gardening implements
Whores = Ho’s (or even ‘Ho’s)
You are welcome.
Apostrophes denote possessives, not plurals.
You are welcome.
God bless you so hard! this is the best thing.
Fantastic!
“Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”
I would propose that “bitches” lie completely in the intersection of “hoes” and “tricks”
I hesitate to suggest this, but the treatise seems to suggest that “shit” represents the empty set as from the colloquial abbreviation “jack-shit”. The correct rendition would appear to be that Bitches are not shit (the empty set) as they are the union of the two discrete sets (i.e. no intersection): Ho’s and Tricks.
@Chris Sims
Alan the Pedant is quite correct. The apostrophe is also used to denote abbreviation by omissions. Other examples include can’t for cannot, don’t for do not, won’t for will not and of course, mo’fo’ (familiar to any students of the above treatises and thus needing no further explanation). In fact the apostrophe for possessive derives from this more general rule, “Alan’s book” is literally “Alan his book”, which is now unused, especially for bitches and ho’s.
In fact the apostrophe for possessive derives from this more general rule, “Alan’s book†is literally “Alan his bookâ€, which is now unused, especially for bitches and ho’s.
Actually, the “Alan his” bit is a myth; it came about around the Renaissance when people began to realize that English was going to stick around for awhile, and tried to formulate rules for it. A lot of myth-rules were introduced (mostly to make English more like Latin), and a lot of myth-etymologies were proposed without any supportive evidence. The apostrophe-s used to denote the possessive is likely a linguistic mutation from when English was an inflected language and had separate case endings for genitive nouns.
Anyway, this was a fantastic post. Reminds me of my favorite hip-hop argument:
P1. All “fly” is “hot.”
P2. I am “fly.”
∴ C1. I am hot.
–Mims’ “An Essay Concerning My Hotness (Revised)”
Sims said, “Apostrophes denote possessives, not plurals.”
Almost true. Except wherein one is making numbers, letters, or words used as words plural, in which cases apostrophes do make things plural (for example, “I got all A’s,” “She only does 10’s,” and “He uses too many well’s in his writing”).
Stupid English language.
these are amazing.
Hey! Chris! First Diagram:
How do you spell ‘courtesy?’
Where is Fig. 4-B showing that you have 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one?
I would disagree on Black Cheese’s opinion of apostrophes. Apostrophes do not denote plurals, except colloquially, which doesn’t count.
Dre posits that “bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”, but Josh is interpreting this statement as “(bitches ain’t shit) and [(bitches are hoes) or (bitches are tricks)]”. These two statements are not logically equivalent.
If Dre had posited “bitches ain’t shit, dey’s only hoes or tricks”, then the comment would be correct.
Under Dre’s classification, the following interpretations are possible:
bitches != shit, bitches = {hoes} ᑌ {tricks}
or
bitches != shit, bitches = {hoes} á‘Ž {tricks}
Finally, there is some ambiguity with the meaning of the word “but”, we could result in the position:
“Bitches ain’t shit (unless they are either) hoes or tricks.”
This would result in Bitches, as a class, comprising exactly the union of {shit} and {hoes} and {tricks}, but with {shit} ᑎ [{hoes} ᑌ {tricks}] = ∅.
Remember as well that this is a Unification Theory, and does not rely entirely upon the work of Professor Dre, but represents a reconciliation with the research of Dr. Dogg.
your comments make the post even funnier
Simply marvelous. Don’t let the haters get you down, your math is perfect.
If Dre posits that Bitches aint’t shit but hoes and tricks, it therefore means that:
1. Bitches are Hoes
2. Bitches are Tricks
3. Bitches are NOT shit
This further implies that:
4. Hoes are Tricks, and Tricks are Hoes
>> Hoes = Tricks = Bitch Not= Shit
If that’s the case, then:
5. Neither Hoes, Tricks nor Bitches are Shit!
6. Conversely, Hoes, Tricks or Bithes are NOT Shit
7. The last part of my logic prooves Dre right: Bitches are NOT Shit
However, proving Dre wrong, using mathematical rap inductance:
6. Since Dre posits that Bitches are Hoes and Tricks (but NOT) Shit, then conclusively:
7. Since Hoes and Tricks are NOT Shit, therefore Bitches ARE NOT Hoes and/or Tricks!
Please compare my logical axiom (7 above) with Dre’s Posit that: Bitches ARE Hoes and Tricks.
I will like my axiom to be recorded in the books of history.
I’m a Hip Hop/ R & B Art from Nigeria.
Excellent work by Dr. Robert Dijital.
Menders says, “I would disagree on Black Cheese’s opinion of apostrophes.”
And you’d probably disagree with my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, too.
Get a grammar book and look it up. My _Harbrace College Handbook_’s backing me up here. Even Wikipedia wants ’em on p’s and q’s.
Fantastic.
JoeBrown, your comment is the icing on this delicious Venn Gansta’ Nerd Cake.
we should all sent a link of this page to Dre’s myspace page and demand his comment in the subject, i know i will
this is what i sent to dre on myspace
Dear Dr Dre
A few colleges of mine had a dissagreement as to the meaning of your quote “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks” from the song “Bitches ain’t shit” http://www.the-isb.com/?p=136#comment-3317
i would like to get a clarification from you about what exactly you meant by you comment stated in the song
Thank you for your time
David Kawaz
How do you spell ‘courtesy?’
Why, the same way it’s spelled–and has always been spelled–in the diagram, of course!
… [Cough]
Where is Fig. 4-B showing that you have 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one?
I’ve actually seen that one floating around before; these are ones that I thought up while I had my cold last week, and while that one’s funny, I didn’t want to claim it as my own.
Re: The Bitch/Ho/Trick Debate:
While it is true that Dre and Snoop have postulated that bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks–thus implying that “bitches” would be the intersection of hoes and tricks–one must remember that this is, in fact, the Unified Bitch Theory. The area of bitches that exists outside of this intersection therefore represents all women, not merely tricks and hoes. This is, of course, a reference to science revealed in Dr. Cube’s 1988 treatise on the subject, where it was discovered that while not every woman is a bitch (hence, a ho or trick), every woman got a little bitch in ’em.
Thus, this science was incorporated in the above diagram.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
I don’t know anything about maths or logic, but am I to assume that because bitches are not shit, but trick and hoes this inherently means that hoes and tricks cannot be shit either? Somehow that seems counter-intuitive.
Under the proposition that bitches aint shit but tricks and hoes, there is nothing to say that hoes and tricks are not in fact THE SHIT.
addemdum
I came to the above conclusion because:
If all bitches are not shit, but all bitches are tricks and hoes, then some tricks and hoes may be shit, as long as they are not bitches.
And now I am going to stop before I lose my mind completely. How do you ppl stay sane?
@ Black Cheese
hilariously, I *would* dispute with you that the sun will rise tomorrow; that is becuase it almost certainly won’t.
what wikipedia actually says is that though they are used by some sources to denote plurals, that use has largely officially been superceded. So, colloquially you can, but it is hardly a rule.
I concur with most of the above – but I fear there may have been an oversight.
May I suggest that Dre, using colloquial notation, means ‘shit’ as zero?
i.e.
bitches != 0
bitches = ho’s AND tricks
ࢺ
ho’s + tricks != 0
This may be related to the Money Collolary mentioned by Brown (26).
you are a genius my friend.
howdy!
Menders said, “hilariously, I *would* dispute with you that the sun will rise tomorrow; that is becuase it almost certainly won’t.”
Ookay. And you’re spending your last day pointlessly arguing apostrophes? Whoah.
Menders continues, “what wikipedia actually says is that though they are used by some sources to denote plurals, that use has largely officially been superceded. So, colloquially you can, but it is hardly a rule.”
Wiki’s not a grammar book. The six on my shelf disagree with it. I disagree with it (I mean, really, when you saw As in the middle of this sentence, didn’t you just misread it as As and not A’s?).
Sounds like you’re of everything-is-an-opinion school. Good luck with that. See you at sunrise.
It’s very funny, hope we get some more of that. I stumbled this post hopefully you get some traffic
@ Black Cheese
what do you know, the sun rose today. it probably won’t tomorrow ;-)
frankly, i can spend my last day doing what the hell i like, because i’m probably not really doing it anyway…besides, i don’t actually understand venn diagrams so i can’t really weigh in to the main debate with any particular substance.
My only real point on apostrophes is that there isn’t a hard and fast rule, despite what your so-called grammar books might suggest. colloquially, apostrophes can be used in all manner of ways. The only standard I’ve ever encounted in my grammar books is that they are not to be used to denote plurals, never mind how expedient it may be.
menders rhymes with benders
Fig 4a is wrong, all you have to change to right the situation, is remove the circle of “biches” and stop the circle’s of both “trick’s” and “ho’s” from interlocking. Since a “bitch” has to be either a “trick” or a “ho”, either she is promiscuous (“ho”) or remains monogomus in a relationship because she wants your money (“trick”).
well bugs you are a genius….. but do they know you’re real name is clark kent???? mwahahahah
JESUS CHRIST IT’S A LION GET IN THE CAR
I always got “Bitches are not shit except for hoes and tricks”, where “shit” is not “nothing”, but is in fact “everything”. Thus, we can say “In the group shit, that which belongs to the group bitches must also belong to group hoes or group tricks, exclusively”.
B ⇒ {H ∨ T} ⊕ S ⇒ ⊤
B ⇒ S ∧ {H ∨ T} ⇒ ⊥
Actually though (If I may present my opinion to my esteemed colleuges) I believe, with my understanding of the Dr. Drean dialect of Gangsta rap that Dre was actually saying,
“Bitches (Women) are not anything more than Whores and Tricks”
You see “aint shit” = are not anything more (or greater) than
What Dre is truly implying here is that all the women that he had met up until publication of this theory were lying and decietful witches who would betray him, therefore thier only real purpose was to have sexual intercourse for money(whores) or have sex with other people for HIS money(tricks)
And they say Americans lack math and analysis skills.
(Though I could swear there was a 12% overlap between Tricks ‘n Shit.)
What you have done, sir is SCIENCE.
The kind of SCIENCE, unfortunatly, that releases dark gods into our world, but you tried.
The Great Old One’s internet is down right now, so I’ll thank you in their stead.
“(Though I could swear there was a 12% overlap between Tricks ‘n Shit.)”
Naw, dawg. Bitches AIN’T shit, but they hoes AND tricks.
You know, you think you’d give Dr. Folds some credit on that last one there, Mr. Sims.
Too funny.
I notice a critical flaw in Figure 4-A. The figure contradicts Dr. Dre’s (PhD) treatise entitled ‘Bitches ain’t shit’, in it is stated that “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”. While you have correctly shown that ‘Bitches’ and ‘Shit’ are two discrete groups (i.e. that “Bitches ain’t shit”), you have incorrectly shown the class of “bitches” as existing partially outside of the groups “tricks” and “hoes”. The correct formulation of the theory would have “bitches” as the intersection of the two classes, with no section outlying. Keep in mind, bitches ain’t shit but hoes AND (not and/or) tricks.
who says Venn diagrams aren’t useful tools?
Wow… that should be album cover artwork right there.
BRILLIANT!
I must agree with Josh. The diagram in Fig. 4-A suggests that some bitches are neither hoes NOR tricks, a logical impossibility.
Well played sir…. well played
awesome Fig 4-A is indeed wrong tho i`d say it`s more like this http://bp3.blogger.com/_rsLBIdia9Aw/RuPEeMMyAXI/AAAAAAAABUs/q-thJhtv8mk/s400/bitchez.GIF
Seems your risk paid off.
Is there nothing you can’t explain, illustrate, or simplify? You continue to entertain and amuse me – DON’T EVER STOP.
Clarence and Josh correctly identify one way 4-A could be wrong. There’s one other way. It could also be the case that all hoes are tricks AND all tricks are hoes AND all hoes are bitches AND all tricks are bitches. Under this interpretation of the theory, hoes = tricks = bitches. A diagram for this interpretation could be represented by three sets of the same size stacked on top of one another. You could show the hoes on top of the tricks and the tricks on top of the bitches, or use whatever other stacking order you might prefer.
тхиаго, I think your diagram is wrong since it shows that bitches are shit.
Better than I expected. I especially enjoyed #1.
I hope this is a series.
All of you are wrong.
It’s all shit, ie., shit is congruent with the universe under discussion. Within the universe of shit, _all_ bitches must be hos or tricks, because they ain’t shit but that. Put another way, within the context of bitches, there “ain’t shit,” ie., there is nothing, that is not either a ho or a trick.
However, the listener is left to decide, based on their own life experience, whether it is possible for a bitch to be both a ho and a trick. Accordingly, I don’t think we have enough information, just in the statement, to draw a complete diagram.
тхиаго that chart puts bitches in the shit; that just is not right.
a clear misunderstanding of Dr. Dre’s treatise
so humbling is Josh’s genius that I dare not offer praise nor comment
Finally a use for science that we can all get behind!
Thats great!
I hope they explain the paradox of how pimpin’ sure ain’t easy but it sure ain’t hard next.
i have to imagine Jay-Z and Public Enemy can be mined for inclusion in this poster display.
hate you you damn asshole…hgoply you die with no bitches in your crappy hole
This is the best thing.
I want a full-size poster of the last one. Nay, need.
I have always been a fan of the Dre/Snoop Bitches to Money Corrolary:
If: Life ain’t nothing but bitches and money
And: Bitches ain’t nothing but hos and tricks
[Where: Hos and tricks = money]
Then: Life ain’t nothing but money.
This made me laugh. Nice piece!
Best post ever?
YES.
Re: some of the comments
Only internetcomicbookgeeks would seriously debate the diagram, thus sucking all the fun out of it.
Figure 4a should have only two circles: hoes and tricks. (The lyrics are unspecific, but the circles are probably overlapping to some degree.) Bitches is defined by the union (not the intersection, as Josh suggests) of these circles.
gtfo! really?
I am most impressed, sir. I hope that in later years, you will perform a flow chart for what is and is not “Gangsta”. If you are interested in broaching such a study, you should refer to the seminal classic “Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta” post haste.
These are wonderful, but I don’t think any of the posts sucessfully communicate the misunderstanding in play here.
Dre clearly meant bitches are nothing other than hoes and tricks. Bitches should fall into no other category, probably not even being solely identified as bitches. I do agree that hoage and trickage are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Impressive. I’d like to try your Wu-Tang style.
Let’s begin then.
…Heh, he left out the one listing all 99 problems that “Bitch” has no relationship to.
Hoes = farming/gardening implements
Whores = Ho’s (or even ‘Ho’s)
You are welcome.
Apostrophes denote possessives, not plurals.
You are welcome.
God bless you so hard! this is the best thing.
Fantastic!
“Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”
I would propose that “bitches” lie completely in the intersection of “hoes” and “tricks”
I hesitate to suggest this, but the treatise seems to suggest that “shit” represents the empty set as from the colloquial abbreviation “jack-shit”. The correct rendition would appear to be that Bitches are not shit (the empty set) as they are the union of the two discrete sets (i.e. no intersection): Ho’s and Tricks.
@Chris Sims
Alan the Pedant is quite correct. The apostrophe is also used to denote abbreviation by omissions. Other examples include can’t for cannot, don’t for do not, won’t for will not and of course, mo’fo’ (familiar to any students of the above treatises and thus needing no further explanation). In fact the apostrophe for possessive derives from this more general rule, “Alan’s book” is literally “Alan his book”, which is now unused, especially for bitches and ho’s.
Actually, the “Alan his” bit is a myth; it came about around the Renaissance when people began to realize that English was going to stick around for awhile, and tried to formulate rules for it. A lot of myth-rules were introduced (mostly to make English more like Latin), and a lot of myth-etymologies were proposed without any supportive evidence. The apostrophe-s used to denote the possessive is likely a linguistic mutation from when English was an inflected language and had separate case endings for genitive nouns.
Anyway, this was a fantastic post. Reminds me of my favorite hip-hop argument:
P1. All “fly” is “hot.”
P2. I am “fly.”
∴ C1. I am hot.
–Mims’ “An Essay Concerning My Hotness (Revised)”
Sims said, “Apostrophes denote possessives, not plurals.”
Almost true. Except wherein one is making numbers, letters, or words used as words plural, in which cases apostrophes do make things plural (for example, “I got all A’s,” “She only does 10’s,” and “He uses too many well’s in his writing”).
Stupid English language.
these are amazing.
Hey! Chris! First Diagram:
How do you spell ‘courtesy?’
Where is Fig. 4-B showing that you have 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one?
I would disagree on Black Cheese’s opinion of apostrophes. Apostrophes do not denote plurals, except colloquially, which doesn’t count.
Dre posits that “bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”, but Josh is interpreting this statement as “(bitches ain’t shit) and [(bitches are hoes) or (bitches are tricks)]”. These two statements are not logically equivalent.
If Dre had posited “bitches ain’t shit, dey’s only hoes or tricks”, then the comment would be correct.
Under Dre’s classification, the following interpretations are possible:
bitches != shit, bitches = {hoes} ᑌ {tricks}
or
bitches != shit, bitches = {hoes} á‘Ž {tricks}
Finally, there is some ambiguity with the meaning of the word “but”, we could result in the position:
“Bitches ain’t shit (unless they are either) hoes or tricks.”
This would result in Bitches, as a class, comprising exactly the union of {shit} and {hoes} and {tricks}, but with {shit} ᑎ [{hoes} ᑌ {tricks}] = ∅.
Remember as well that this is a Unification Theory, and does not rely entirely upon the work of Professor Dre, but represents a reconciliation with the research of Dr. Dogg.
your comments make the post even funnier
Simply marvelous. Don’t let the haters get you down, your math is perfect.
If Dre posits that Bitches aint’t shit but hoes and tricks, it therefore means that:
1. Bitches are Hoes
2. Bitches are Tricks
3. Bitches are NOT shit
This further implies that:
4. Hoes are Tricks, and Tricks are Hoes
>> Hoes = Tricks = Bitch Not= Shit
If that’s the case, then:
5. Neither Hoes, Tricks nor Bitches are Shit!
6. Conversely, Hoes, Tricks or Bithes are NOT Shit
7. The last part of my logic prooves Dre right: Bitches are NOT Shit
However, proving Dre wrong, using mathematical rap inductance:
6. Since Dre posits that Bitches are Hoes and Tricks (but NOT) Shit, then conclusively:
7. Since Hoes and Tricks are NOT Shit, therefore Bitches ARE NOT Hoes and/or Tricks!
Please compare my logical axiom (7 above) with Dre’s Posit that: Bitches ARE Hoes and Tricks.
I will like my axiom to be recorded in the books of history.
I’m a Hip Hop/ R & B Art from Nigeria.
Excellent work by Dr. Robert Dijital.
Menders says, “I would disagree on Black Cheese’s opinion of apostrophes.”
And you’d probably disagree with my opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, too.
Get a grammar book and look it up. My _Harbrace College Handbook_’s backing me up here. Even Wikipedia wants ’em on p’s and q’s.
Fantastic.
JoeBrown, your comment is the icing on this delicious Venn Gansta’ Nerd Cake.
we should all sent a link of this page to Dre’s myspace page and demand his comment in the subject, i know i will
this is what i sent to dre on myspace
Dear Dr Dre
A few colleges of mine had a dissagreement as to the meaning of your quote “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks” from the song “Bitches ain’t shit”
http://www.the-isb.com/?p=136#comment-3317
i would like to get a clarification from you about what exactly you meant by you comment stated in the song
Thank you for your time
David Kawaz
How do you spell ‘courtesy?’
Why, the same way it’s spelled–and has always been spelled–in the diagram, of course!
… [Cough]
Where is Fig. 4-B showing that you have 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one?
I’ve actually seen that one floating around before; these are ones that I thought up while I had my cold last week, and while that one’s funny, I didn’t want to claim it as my own.
Re: The Bitch/Ho/Trick Debate:
While it is true that Dre and Snoop have postulated that bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks–thus implying that “bitches” would be the intersection of hoes and tricks–one must remember that this is, in fact, the Unified Bitch Theory. The area of bitches that exists outside of this intersection therefore represents all women, not merely tricks and hoes. This is, of course, a reference to science revealed in Dr. Cube’s 1988 treatise on the subject, where it was discovered that while not every woman is a bitch (hence, a ho or trick), every woman got a little bitch in ’em.
Thus, this science was incorporated in the above diagram.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
I don’t know anything about maths or logic, but am I to assume that because bitches are not shit, but trick and hoes this inherently means that hoes and tricks cannot be shit either? Somehow that seems counter-intuitive.
Under the proposition that bitches aint shit but tricks and hoes, there is nothing to say that hoes and tricks are not in fact THE SHIT.
addemdum
I came to the above conclusion because:
If all bitches are not shit, but all bitches are tricks and hoes, then some tricks and hoes may be shit, as long as they are not bitches.
And now I am going to stop before I lose my mind completely. How do you ppl stay sane?
@ Black Cheese
hilariously, I *would* dispute with you that the sun will rise tomorrow; that is becuase it almost certainly won’t.
what wikipedia actually says is that though they are used by some sources to denote plurals, that use has largely officially been superceded. So, colloquially you can, but it is hardly a rule.
I concur with most of the above – but I fear there may have been an oversight.
May I suggest that Dre, using colloquial notation, means ‘shit’ as zero?
i.e.
bitches != 0
bitches = ho’s AND tricks
ࢺ
ho’s + tricks != 0
This may be related to the Money Collolary mentioned by Brown (26).
you are a genius my friend.
howdy!
Menders said, “hilariously, I *would* dispute with you that the sun will rise tomorrow; that is becuase it almost certainly won’t.”
Ookay. And you’re spending your last day pointlessly arguing apostrophes? Whoah.
Menders continues, “what wikipedia actually says is that though they are used by some sources to denote plurals, that use has largely officially been superceded. So, colloquially you can, but it is hardly a rule.”
Wiki’s not a grammar book. The six on my shelf disagree with it. I disagree with it (I mean, really, when you saw As in the middle of this sentence, didn’t you just misread it as As and not A’s?).
Sounds like you’re of everything-is-an-opinion school. Good luck with that. See you at sunrise.
It’s very funny, hope we get some more of that. I stumbled this post hopefully you get some traffic
@ Black Cheese
what do you know, the sun rose today. it probably won’t tomorrow ;-)
frankly, i can spend my last day doing what the hell i like, because i’m probably not really doing it anyway…besides, i don’t actually understand venn diagrams so i can’t really weigh in to the main debate with any particular substance.
My only real point on apostrophes is that there isn’t a hard and fast rule, despite what your so-called grammar books might suggest. colloquially, apostrophes can be used in all manner of ways. The only standard I’ve ever encounted in my grammar books is that they are not to be used to denote plurals, never mind how expedient it may be.
menders rhymes with benders
Fig 4a is wrong, all you have to change to right the situation, is remove the circle of “biches” and stop the circle’s of both “trick’s” and “ho’s” from interlocking. Since a “bitch” has to be either a “trick” or a “ho”, either she is promiscuous (“ho”) or remains monogomus in a relationship because she wants your money (“trick”).
well bugs you are a genius….. but do they know you’re real name is clark kent???? mwahahahah
JESUS CHRIST IT’S A LION GET IN THE CAR
I always got “Bitches are not shit except for hoes and tricks”, where “shit” is not “nothing”, but is in fact “everything”. Thus, we can say “In the group shit, that which belongs to the group bitches must also belong to group hoes or group tricks, exclusively”.
B ⇒ {H ∨ T} ⊕ S ⇒ ⊤
B ⇒ S ∧ {H ∨ T} ⇒ ⊥
Дааа)) Ð’Ñ‹ бы знали что про Ð’Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ð¸ÑˆÑƒÑ‚ в других блогах)))
This is the funniest thing I’ve read all week!
Actually though (If I may present my opinion to my esteemed colleuges) I believe, with my understanding of the Dr. Drean dialect of Gangsta rap that Dre was actually saying,
“Bitches (Women) are not anything more than Whores and Tricks”
You see “aint shit” = are not anything more (or greater) than
What Dre is truly implying here is that all the women that he had met up until publication of this theory were lying and decietful witches who would betray him, therefore thier only real purpose was to have sexual intercourse for money(whores) or have sex with other people for HIS money(tricks)
I hope I’ve been helpful here.
…TheGift
Ура!, вебмаÑтер удачно накропал.
Josh way above said it correctly.