comments

1. Andrew Simone on September 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

   1:23 is vastly superior. For one, it is simpler. There are less numbers . Second, the 1-2-3 evokes the concept of simplicity, “It’s as simple as 1-2-3″ so its form communicates its function. Third, three is a more natural grouping than four; there is an element of wholeness or completeness that four numbers don’t have.

2. Deron Bauman on September 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

   well said.

3. el serracho on September 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

   1:23. what’s your hurry?

4. Aaron Winslow on September 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

   1:23 in the a.m. Preferably waking up and thinking I have to go to work and then understanding I don’t and then farting.

5. Daryl Scroggins on September 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

   There’s an interesting intersection here between Andrew’s comment (“three is a more natural grouping than four”) and Aaron’s (“and then farting”): Pythagoras would have probably seen 12:34 as a more natural grouping–and since he forbade the eating of beans (don’t want the divine wind of the soul escaping, and all of that), he probably wouldn’t have approved of Aaron’s view either. But, I too prefer 1:23. The other is the hinge of dualism.

6. Cindy Scroggins on September 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

   Mmmmm, beans.

Leave a Reply