Point of view
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
“In Wikipedia, all points of views are small.”
WARNING: THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT "PREGNANT OSTRICH VANITY"
Point of view, POV (currently hiding in Pakistan), is an optical paradox in which all parallel objects converge in a point called the "point of view." This point "seems" to be within our grasp in our field of vision but vanishes when we try to reach it. Thus the POV is sometimes called the vanishing point. For example, two parallel tracks of rails seem to converge in a vanishing point or POV when observed and vertical objects like high-rises appear conical when observed. If we stare at the POV for long enough, the point becomes a blind spot. A blind spot isn't literally a blind spot in our field of vision but has something to do with rods and cones in our eyes (now this is a non-optical-linguistic-meta-paradox or an non-optical-linguistic-in-paradox for it is a paradox within a paradox, namely: how can a spot be blind if it has no eyes to begin with? It does not exist; yet it's called a spot?).
How is the above a paradox?
If we assume the aforesaid to be true then everything parallel that we view does converge to a point called the POV. If there is a POV for such objects then anything that does not have a POV in our field of vision is not parallel. If you think hard, you'll see the paradox in the preceding conclusion -- at least you'll see it's POV. Try seeing harder and the POV will get subsumed by the blind spot (and again the meta-paradox or the invisible blind spot -- the meta-paradox is hidden in both outcomes: when the premise is taken as true and when the premise is taken as false).
Is this article a paradox or a meta-paradox?
This is easy. It's certainly a meta-paradox. Were it a paradox, you'd be redirected to NPOV every time you clicked on POV and you'd find therein a redirect (#REDIRECT) to POV which would take you to ad nauseam. But this does not happen. Thus by applying the rule of elimination, this article must be a meta-paradox.
What's the linguistic equivalent of this optical paradox, POV?
The linguistic approximation of the optical paradox, POV, is Wikipedia.
(LOL, just kidding -- a meta joke! Come back!)
The linguistic approximation of the POV paradox is:
- This statement is true
In linguistics, if the above statement is true then it isn't a paradox. If it isn't a paradox then it's true that neither are any of the paradoxes listed in the status quo ante, really paradoxes. But that is untrue! Thus the statement is a paradox: it is a self-reflexive paradox, as is also the optical POV paradox. Both these paradoxes have been catalogued in a catalogue called Catalogue of Self-Reflexive Paradoxes as being of the self-reflexive variety by the author of the catalogue, Bertrand Russell.
Wikipedia, incidentally, is not at all a paradox -- it's a parody; a parody of catalogues. Uncyclopedia is a catalogue that may or may not have a POV; unless it's a paradox; which it isn't...or perhaps this needs to be examined more closely...preferably by Bertrand Russell.
How to correct the POV to conform to authentic visual narration of events?
This can be achieved by a diverging lens that restores the paradoxomatic bending of waves to compensate for the paroxysmal skewing of light by the eyes' lenses through a diffracting prismoscope. Such lenses cannot be bought -- they can only be acquired. These acquired lenses are acquired through genetic proclivity for a certain shape of eyeball. All eyeballs aren't equal but it's believed that bio-genetic cloning may help correct the diffractive error of the 99.999% of human population that is born with a POV IQ less than absolute zero.
Which POV is the lowest common multiple (LCM) of all POV's?
Factor the denominators of the defractors of all your subjects and calculate the lowest common multiple (LCM) by viewing them through a prism. When your view is from a point of view that does not diffract light into Roy G. Biv then you have the lowest common multiple of all the POV's.
Of what use is the LCM of POV's?
The LCM of POV's is a useful equation that gives us a more or less authentic narration of backward events. It has been devised into an inexpensive (relatively inexpensive from my POV) lens that is used to view events backwards. Since the lens is very expensive (from some POV's) and commercially unviable to mass produce, it's still not used in many places where it's use is almost mandatory: for example the rear & side view mirrors of automobiles do not use this lens despite a Euro XIIV norm that makes it statutory for all automobiles to be equipped with it. Until such time that automobile manufacturers are able to come up with a commercially viable version of this lens, all rear & side view mirrors come affixed with the following warning, Objects in the mirror may have a POV different from what you see.
Which POV is the highest common factor (HCF) of all POV's?
What are the practical applications of the HCF of all POV's?
At present there is no application of the HCF of all POV's even though we can compute it. However, this is nothing unusual in mathematics for the HCF of POV is not alone in this respect.
My teacher wants me write an essay on American History from the minority POV. Help!
There are a lot of sites in the Internet that will do your homework for a small fee. However, we do your homework for free. Your teacher wants you to write an essay from the mirrority point of view! *whack* Learn to spell correctly! See the above FAQ on finding the LCM of POV's -- that's the answer you're looking for.
My professor wants me write a paper on gender inequality from a feminist POV! Help!
This is difficult. It is difficult to see the female point of view for reasons that have more to do with social mores, morality, chastity, decorum etc. than any lack of corrective lenses. The female is always shielded by clothes and hides her body. Shorn of clothes and bodice, you will see that the naked female figure is parallel, as in 36-36-36, and you will then see the converging point of view. If you stare at the POV for long enough, it will blind you, i.e. it will become a blind spot. If you stare any longer, it will turn into a G-spot. Remember that your POV in the essay should not breach the blind spot threshold and please don't mention the G-spot even if you have seen it. Is your professor female? Maybe you can ask her to volunteer by showing you her POV.
I have to write a research paper on natural selection from a neutral POV! Help
Hello post doc. I'm sure you can pay? Alright that's enough. No point of view in helping folks do homework for free. If you think Uncyclopedia is a Straightdope wannabe then maybe you should get your eyesight checked -- you might be sorely needing an LCM lens to correct your skewed POV.
The other boys in my class call me a POV and then repeatedly kick me in the groin! Help!
If you were to explain to your classmates that if you were a POV you would be a paradox, and therefore incapable of existing in the real world, their argument will collapse. Obviously they will still be capable of kicking you in the groin but you will be able to revel in the knowledge that they had made a false assertion.