If looks could kill they probably will

 “Games without front ears, war without tears” sang Chris Rea from Middlesbrough like. Or maybe it was Peter Sarstedt or summat. 

So. Logic. What on earth can we possibly deduce from the phrase “games without front ears….”? I (don’t) hear you cry? Well…..

1.  We can say for sure there are front ears. This means we know there are one or more ears behind them. Although we cannot say how many.

2.  Ears, plural. We now know there are multiple ears, but only at the front. We cannot say for sure that the “rear” or anything behind the front ears also contain multiple ears. For instance, if, say, the “front” contained five ears (or two) there still may be only one ear behind. There may also be several rows of single ears but also an infinite, yet unknown, number of many ears. We cannot say.

3.  The model we now know contains a minimum of two ears at the front and a minimum of one ear somewhere behind the front. 

4.  The maximum number of ears behind the front ears is unknown, yet we could surmise that if the front contains more than one ear perhaps the rear or even middle and rear could contain more than one ear, yet this is unproven but would suggest if proven that the ears behind the front were set into rows…..

5.   ….This is because the term front ears tell us that there are several ears simultaneously at the front, telling us that they must be in a line or row as if even one ear was slightly behind the front, that ear would not be deemed to be at the front.

6.   The model now contains a definite front and therefore a rear, or at least something behind the front. We can say it is behind as the very nature of the word “front” implies that there is nothing beyond it. However, this does not mean that the same ears are always at the “front”, for instance, in a running race the lead, therefore front can change hands but the “front” remains constant, just not the owner of the “front”.

7.   Again, we can say for sure there is a front and one or several rows (or singular) of ears behind. Can we deduce, therefore, this model has sides?  Not necessarily. For instance if our model now contains, say, seven rows of 5 ears, this does not mean it now has sides, yet the outer ears of each row COULD now be called the side ears. However this is presumptuous as it does not prove that all the rows are directly behind/in front of each other, yet even if the rows are not in line we could still perhaps say that the outer ears are the side ears. 

8.   Having not proven conclusively that there are multiple ears behind we should now say that it is not definitive that the rows exists, ie the “rows” could in theory contain only be ear thus nullifying the words “row” and “side” in that in singularity cannot be said to have two sides.

9.   It seems (and that is a useless term in the realm of logic) that however many ears (minimum 3, maximum unknown) there are games that contain ears, as we know that the writer of the phrase “games without front ears….” felt the need to point this fact out, thus proving by default that games that contain ears exist. Why point out there are games without front ears if games with ears didn’t exist?

10.   We can only surmise what these games entailed but they sound fucking mental, with or without ears.

11.  We can also, with absolute certainty, deduce that the above means nothing if the author could spell the word frontiers. 

12.   Fin.