In accordance with correct Scientific Method, the theories the author presented in his previous post have been challenged and rigorously analysed. They are repeated here for the sake of convenience: Axiom A: There’s almost nothing better than a walk in beautiful scenery
Axiom B: There’s almost nothing worse than a walk in beautiful scenery accompanied by a constant running commentary
Axiom A has been called into question as a General Theory, as some people – “outliers”, to be sure, but still part of the “population” – might consider many things to be better than A Walk In Beautiful Scenery: reading Harry Potter books, crazy golf, browsing Helen Mirren’s underwear drawer... whatever. The author therefore withdraws it as a general theorem but resubmits it as a Special Theory: it’s special to the author, he can think of very few things better and those things are just too esoteric to publish in a work of this nature.
Axiom A (Special): There’s almost nothing better than a walk in beautiful scenery
Axiom B must also be resubmitted as a Special Theory for the same reasons. But it can be challenged still further. The phrase “almost nothing” implies a quantity of vanishing smallness. And yet, there is running commentary that the author suggests would enhance the putative Walk: that of the BBC’s Test Match Special team, of which he will be deprived during this Ashes summer. Had it been just a one-off Twenty20 fixture at Edgebaston it might be counted as “vanishingly small”, but the tour comprises 5 tests and 7 ODIs, and we're gonna win all of them. So, Axiom B (Special) must be modified to account for the fact that the commentary must be an unwelcome one. This was the author's first attempt:
Axiom B (Special): There’s almost nothing worse than a walk in beautiful scenery accompanied by a constant f**king running commentary
That’s good enough, many people would think, but logicians everywhere will be wagging their fingers and scratching their acne. The word “f**king” may be stronger than is necessary. I therefore apply Occam’s Razor. William of Ockham (c. 1288 - c. 1348) ran the chip shop in his local monastery (no, he was a “Franciscan friar” – Ed.) and is best known for the Principle of Parsimony which bears his name – the metaphorical “razor” shaves away all that is unnecessary. His mottos were “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (“plurality should not be posited without necessity”), “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” (“It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer”) and “Caesar adsum fish ‘n’ chips forte” (“Caesar had some fish ‘n’ chips for tea”). In accordance with these principles, we require the word “f**king” to be replaced with the mildest possible expletive that still attributes sufficient sense of unwantedness to the commentary in question. There are so many splendid ones in Anglo-Saxon, but the author claims he's found the one that really has no meaning at all except the negativity it conveys:Axiom B (Special): There’s almost nothing worse than a walk in beautiful scenery accompanied by a constant bloody running commentary
