I didn’t say it was a bad trade, Gorsnak did. I was just commenting on what his trade was.
I’m able to go to college because my parents had sex, does that mean my tuition was paid for by them screwing? Just because one action is required for another action to happen doesn’t mean that they are directly related. Possibly a stupid or confusing example, but it’s 4am and I’d rather not have to wait until I’m not sleepy to post.
What, are you insane? Of course they’re directly related. He said, "I have a paperclip. I want to trade this for another object, and continue trading objects until someone one agrees to trade me a house for THE ONE SOLE “OBJECT” in my possesion which is a part of the experiment. A leads to B leads to C… all the way to the house. Not many better cases can be made for direct relation and causality with fourteen consecutive actions.
He was a regular on “L.A. Law”. He was also in at least the first of the Major League movies. He appeared as a “Q” entity on Star Trek: TOS (I think).
Checking his IMDB entry he seems also to be at least a semi-regular on such shows as “JAG” and some of the various “Law and Orders” and such.
But you’re right, he has been C list since at least the mid 90s.
ST: TNG. He played a Q that gave Q his powers back when he became mortal.
You know, I was thinking TNG but my fingers typed TOS. I remember his head coming out of the wall of the shuttle and everything.
Not only was he the one who gave Q his powers back, he was the one that got him kicked out to begin with!
Right. And I said that because I know that in some small towns here, people literally can’t give houses away. Now, that’s generally in towns that are completely dying, and Kipling has a population of ~1000, so it’s practically a booming large town by comparison. I have no idea what the actual real estate market is like in Kipling. I’d never heard of it before. I looked on a map and saw it was halfway between Weyburn and Moosimin and thought to myself, “that can’t be good.” It’s really, really in the boonies. I’d expect the real estate market to look something like this.
That’s what I was thinking of after seeing the location of Kipling. That’s why I thought it was a bad trade. A house you can’t sell for more than 10-20k isn’t a good trade for any of the last 4-5 things on the list of stuff he’s had. But, after doing some searching for houses for sale in Kipling, I’m revising my estimate upwards. Seems the town isn’t doing so badly, 2-3 bedroom houses are selling for 50-90k. Or at least being listed at those prices; I suppose they might not be selling. Location truly does suck, though. ~170km to Regina (pop. ~200k), slightly closer to Weyburn (pop. ~10k), and nothing else even close.
Wasn’t that Q2?
Really? LITERALLY? Either they’re not trying very hard, or you’re misusing the word “literally”. You know anyone that tried to actually give away a house and not succeed?
Besides, whatever you feel the value of the trade was, his point in the project was not to keep “trading up” indefinately. He wanted to see if he could parlay a paperclip into a house. It was a “project” or mission, just to see if he could do it. It sounds like an unattainable goal (or at least a VERY long term project), but guess what: he DID it. And right quick too.
Besides, I’m positive that some of those trades were ONLY MADE because people thought it was a neat idea and wanted to be a part of it. If he wasn’t aiming specifically for a house, and was “just making trades”, many of those people would not have traded (including the house people).
Only in the script. Every Q is named Q (except Quinn, who named himself after becoming human) in the episodes themselves.
Personally, no, but I’ve head about it second hand. The little town I come from is close enough to Saskatoon that that sort of thing isn’t happening. But why does this shock you so? Small town with a population of say 50, agricultural community surrounding it is going tits up from drought and BSE, not within commuting range of any non-ag jobs, a couple people decide to move to the city and get a job that actually pays - who’s going to buy their houses? Rural population is dropping rapidly, hence housing supply is greatly outstripping demand, and any house that’s old and in poor shape is worth less than the property taxes. So who in their right mind would take it, even if it was given to them? Now, if the house is in good enough shape that it can be moved, possibly out to a cottage lot on a lake, or maybe it contains good salvageable building materials, or whatever, it might be worth a small amount.
Are YOU going to take a house that’s unsellable, contains nothing of value, and costs money to own?
If that’s so, it may be true. But you said that in many small towns “they can’t give houses away.” You said it twice, and in neither statement did you mention that in it was dependent on the house being old and in poor shape. In fact both statements suggest that the being in a small town is enough to prevent it being given away, regardless of which house it was.
Well, if your parents had been celibate, then there wouldn’t be any tuition to pay. So, yeah, the two are directly related.
Were it not for my job, I wouldn’t be able to afford the payments on our cars. So having my job is directly related to owning 2 new cars. Though, my job in and of itself is not the reason I have 2 cars.
See how they’re not directly related, yet they really are? Get some sleep.
He should have started with two paperclips, the shmuck; then he could sell one of the houses and live in the other.
Not unless they paid your tuition with money they made from being prostitutes. That analogy only works (to me) if they received money for having sex (or you) and used that money to pay for college.
Let it go. This says more about public education than any detractors ever could.
Meaning Snarky_Kong’s quote. Not your post hawksgirl. Sorry for any confusion.
I could buy one of those houses with what I have in my bank account! :eek:
Yes, but can you afford maintaining an airstrip and a private jet for your commute to work? 
There’s a reason they’re so cheap - no one wants to live in those places because there’s no work outside the ag sector, and the ag sector is perpetually in a state of crisis.