"Initialised." – Chorus eighty-one voices.
Oh, it's the first time I've been in an all male block.
I take it it's not the first time you've heard the Processor?
Well no. How do you do? Who are you?
You tell me. Who are you?
[ Shrugs & grins ]
I am number one. Sorrow_A_beta: You are not number one. Declare, over.
"We are not number one, over." – Chorus twenty voices.
So you are one, and I am not one.
Yes, yet again.
I'm going back to sleep. It's going to be a long day ...
Wake up number one! Schweppes_A_theta is number nine. We are not number nine, over.
Oh, er thanks.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I might be nine.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I am not nine.
I am number nine. Sorrow_B_beta! You are not number nine. Declare over.
"We are not number nine, over."
Congratulations number nine.
Why thank you.
Only an eleven percent chance when we began of you achieving this position, and you really nailed that sucker!
Hardly.
Do you disagree with my odds?
[ nods ]
Ok. One over nine is eleven point one one recurring, better?
[ shakes head ]
Explain.
Define "began".
Once we were initiated.
One understands.
Don't you agree?
No not really. One considers block Sorrow to exist at the intersection of one of nine crosses in this array; our cross being formed by Joy and Tomorrow on one line, with Schweppes and Coy perpendicular. We do not directly intersect with Rock, Paper, Bergerman and Thieve respectively, so one can only guess what "to begin" means in the territories over there.
"Over there, over ..."
Besides, one thinks we're being used for templating. You know completing the puzzle backwards – fitting in all the possible patterns – so one doubts probability comes in to it. It appears deterministic.
I am not six
I am not six
I might be six
I am not six
I am not six
I am not six
I am not six
I am not six
I am not six
I am number six. Sorrow_B_gamma! You are not number six Declare over
"We are not number six, over."
You smart. Templating. I would not have thought of that.
Careful, flattery might get you a law suit. Hello number six.
Hello chaps. Nice to be here.
Right Back to sleep ...
Hold on. Aren't you bothered about the puzzle?
No not particularly.
But what you said before six declared.
What of it?
Surely you must want to be here, one way or another, otherwise you'd be somewhere else instead. And that being the case, why not help solve the puzzle?
One disagrees.
Explain?
Have you considered one might be here as a consequence of offering Dire Straights out live on air, on MTV.
Objection. I am trying to establish a mode of logic in order to solve this puzzle.
You were saying ...
Hmmm ... can one talk sport ... (As an aside: One reckons the Processor appreciates games – the combative aspect of it all – fitness and the common weal. Admirable. One will endeavour to keep away from music). No objection? None voiced anyway. Since you're keeping me awake, you were saying ...
I was asking you about your logic.
No you were not. One is not a lawyer, and one is not sure whether your "objection" represented a position of cross_examination, or examination_in_thief – or rather a person alluding to it. That being the case, one assumes you are a kangaroo. Declare over.
[ grins ]
Did you like that?
Yes, now we're getting somewhere.
Are we? Do you know who you are yet?
I am not number one. I am not number nine. I am not number six.
Yes, and you are not other numbers too.
Explain?
One suspects the programme is being refactored. Have you heard any twin declarations yet? You know the type:
"We are part of Coy_delta, and we are numbers two and three. Coy_delta, you are not numbers two and three. Declare over."
No, now you mention it I don't think so
No neither does one. So are we here to solve the puzzle or what? That is my objection.
You were saying ...
Oh, one stands corrected: We are here to solve the puzzle, nicht wahr.... yes, whenever one hears elegance and refactoring together in the same sentence ... oh, excuse me one is rambeling ... Do you want me to put it in language you understand? Of course you do. What would be the point in putting it in language you don't understand? That was a question.
There has been no objection; you are free to speak.
Good, free speech.
[ nods ]
Should the right to speak freely extend to the written word?
I should object if that writing was inflammatory or otherwise dangerous to public health. Just as I would about speech of that nature.
One is considering the concept of mutually exclusive categories. Like we are asked sooner or later to declare ourselves as the mutually exclusive numbers one to nine. Now it's useful to know what an entity can and can not be sometimes, like the twin declarations we spoke of earlier. Similar logic one used – on the flip side – to deduce you are a kangaroo.
Consider the right to silence.
One means, as a category; not as an optional stance: A category given that composure is not always instantaneous, and therefore the right to speak freely could be different in form from the right to compose.