An excellent grafitto, yes - but I say it is beaten by one on a condom dispenser in a truck stop in Buffalo, Texas: "Tarp your load!"
OK, now I can share this one.
On the local NPR radio station, at 7PM "All Things Considered" is followed by "Which Way, L.A.?". Tuesday, they were covering a new health ordinance that required the wearing of sterile latex gloves when preparing raw edible food, but the way it was written it also requires the food preparer to don a new pair of gloves for each plate. So if you're preparing 100 plates, you'd have to take off the gloves and put on a fresh pair before moving on to the next plate, which means you had to do that 100 times. For many reasons, food preparers and restauranteurs are protesting the ordinance.
One restauranteur who also works in the kitchen, a woman (restaurantess?), was being interviewed for the program. After describing the impracticalities of the ordinance and the waste and the breaking of the preparer's concentration, etc, she went on to describe how handling food is a sensual experience and how the feel of the food communicates a lot of information to her regarding the amount of seasoning, etc -- having worked in carpentry where we relied a lot on the feel of the wood, I understand what she's saying.
But there was just something about the way that she said that when she has to wear gloves (AKA "protection"), she doesn't like it because it doesn't feel the same, that made me retort, "Well! Now you know how we guys feel!"
Edited by dwise1, : "-esse" vs "-ess". For some reason, I had shifted to French mode.
What I heard right after the Six-Day War was that the Egyptians had taken their Soviet tanks and buried them in the sand, converting them to stationary artillery pieces and completely losing all mobility. The Israeli tanks just ran right through them.
Mind you, I heard that on Johnny Carson, but as I recall he wasn't joking about it except to wonder what they were thinking.
Over in Is there a legitimate argument for design? a thread of "Why is the Sky Blue?" has been running, though it seems to be more about that type of question rather than trying to answer the question.
PhD Astronomy Clifford Stoll stumbled into computer security in the 1980's by investigating an series of unusual log-ins at the Berkeley computer center, eventually tracing (or rather finally getting the government to do that trace) the activity back to a German hacker working for the Soviets to break into US government and university computers to find information on Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. That story is told in his book, "The Cuckoo's Egg" (excellent and fun read) and an episode of Nova ("The KGB, The Computer, and Me", available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKxaq1FTac).
In "The Cuckoo's Egg", he tells the story of the final oral exam for his PhD in which one professor asked his, "Why is the sky blue?" In order to answer it fully and properly, it took two to four hours.
Here is an interview in which he tells that story:
Sadly, that is not a joke. I'm not saying that that tweet is genuine, but rather that it does represent how much too many Christians know.
Back in 2002, I received an email from a Christian asking me about a badly garbled claim about how fast the sun is losing its mass (the claim was that the sun loses half its mass every year). That led me to look for other examples, in the course of which I found that the current vector for claims involving solar-mass loss was Kent Hovind, though he is obviously not the source of the original claim that had been so badly garbled. I keep trying to rewrite my page on that claim, the latest which you can find as: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Claim.
While searching for examples of Hovind's claim, I came across this flaming example of fundamentalist Christian conspiracy paranoia and science illiteracy at http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm:
quote:
TITLE: EXACT ILLUMINIST TIMETABLE FOR PRODUCING ANTICHRIST HAS BEEN REVEALED TO CUTTING EDGE MINISTRIES!
Subtitle: We have been given the exact timetable for producing Antichrist, including the exact date he is planned to arise. We have also been given the precise occult thinking by which this timetable was produced. If God does not act to prevent the Illuminati from carrying out this Plan, Antichrist will likely arise as the Illuminati has scheduled.
. . .
JUPITER NOT A PLANET, BUT AN UNLIT GASEOUS BODY
It seems pretty outrageous to think of Jupiter becoming a star. Some investigation of the makeup of Jupiter on some scientific web sites is in order, especially because of Cooper's bold statement that Jupiter has a makeup "exactly" like that of our Sun. Here are a few comments about Jupiter from the NASA web site located at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/Jovian.html#king
quote:
"Jupiter contains two-thirds of the planetary mass of the solar system. In composition it resembles a small star. Electrical activity in Jupiter is so strong that it pours billions of watts into Earth's own magnetic field every day. No planet has greater influence on its neighbors. Most of its mass is hydrogen and helium --- it does not burn like the Sun. Models of star formation suggest that Jupiter's mass is only about one-eightieth of the mass needed for ignition, which occurs due to heating from internal gravitational collapse. Jupiter's smaller size leaves its center too cool to ignite."
Here are some comments from (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space) at the University of Arizona.http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/jupiter.html
quote:
"(Jupiter does NOT produce energy by nuclear fusion as in the Sun; it is much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions.) Jupiter is just about as large in diameter as a gas planet can be. If more material were to be added, it would be compressed by gravity such that the overall radius would increase only slightly. A star can be larger only because of its internal (nuclear) heat source. (But Jupiter would have to be at least 80 times more massive to become a star.) "
These comments from NASA, and this astronomy research group, seem to be clear that Jupiter could never ignite on its own. We then posed the following question to the Arizona Space Exploration and Astronomy research group "Could Jupiter be ignited by a huge nuclear device ?" The answer we got back was:
quote:
"Jupiter could not be ignited. The central temperature is the determining factor. A self-gravitating mass of hydrogen 20% the size of the Sun, or smaller, does not have a high enough central temperature to induce nuclear fusion. Temperature equates to average kinetic energy of particles; it takes a very high temperature to get even a small fraction of hydrogen ions to overcome their electrical repulsion and fuse." [Guy Smiley dated 2/2/99]
We were still not sure exactly why Jupiter could not ignite, especially if it were hit with the huge atomic explosion of 1,750 Megatons, as occult sources are saying will occur when the 49.7 pounds of plutonium in the spacecraft Galileo is turned into the planet on December 6. After all, the largest thermonuclear explosion on earth was the Russian test of only 100 megatons in 1961. The answer we received from a Christian scientist, Dr. Kent Hovind, www.drdino.com explained the science to us so we could understand. In the NASA excerpt, quoted above, we learned that "most" of the mass of Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium, a most explosive mix, if it is mixed with sufficient oxygen in order to burn this mixture. Dr. Hovind says Jupiter does not contain enough oxygen in order to sustain the type of continuous burning that would be needed to produce a star. Now, we understand and now it all makes sense. No matter how large the initial explosion might be, the lack of sufficient quantities of oxygen would snuff out any resulting fire rather quickly.
They couldn't understand the simple truth, but they could understand someone who was as confused and ignorant as they were.
Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept. 21, 2003. Of course, there was no explosion since its two reactors, each containing 17 lb of plutonium (or 34 lb combined, not the 49.7 lb claimed), were designed to minimize the effects of any event such as a crash, an explosion, fire, reentry into the atmosphere. More information can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/...eo_(spacecraft)#Electrical_power.
BTW for the sake of lurkers, Kent Hovind is not now nor has he ever been a scientist. His three degrees are all in Religious Education or Christian Education and they are all from unaccredited schools (his Master's and PhD are from the same diploma mill). His only science education was from some classes at a community college in his first two years out of high school and from teaching math and science for about 15 years in private Christian schools (which do not have to require their teachers to be qualified).
Driving home I thought of a practical joke to play on a creationist. Have a group of you sit together at his presentation or in a debate and pretend to be playing a drinking game. Each of you has a bottle in a brown paper bag and every time he uses a typical creationist stupid claim, you look at each other and you all take a drink.
"Evolution is just a theory!" Drink! "No transitional fossils!" Drink! "Thermodynamics!" Drink! "BUT THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!!!" Drink!
Of course, you should probably only have plastic bottles; you probably wouldn't be able to get glass bottles past security. And just pretend that they contain any alcohol. But be sure that you're sitting where the creationist can see you.
I got the idea by remembering what I had heard a Sirius XM Insight show during the Republican primaries. They talked about watching the Republican debates, but they turned it into a drinking game where they'd take a drink for every Republican meme used. They didn't remember anything about what happened in that debate. They were completely wasted in minutes.
No, I was not, but rather to Phat's repeating of an old evangelical Christian meme (which I had only heard from fundamentalists post-1970's). That simple fact is evidenced by my message, Message 627, having been explicitly a reply to his Message 624. For that matter, I have absolutely no idea what post of yours you are talking about since it forms no part in that chain of messages.
Glad you were able to get all that out of your system. Since it has absolutely nothing to do with me, I'll just let it lie there.
My name is David. I have never gone by "Dave". No aversion to it, just never have. My emails at work (Outlook) got all screwed up when our web-head entered my first name as "Dave" instead of "David", whereupon I lost everything.
Other than that, the only moniker I never seemed able to respond to was "Sarge". Though I have no problem with "Chief", but then that's a different service.
{In-line Footnote: While undergoing my annual physical I was waiting to have my dental X-ray taken. The DT came out and announced the next patient as "Chief". As all three of us CPOs looked up, I suggested that he not simply use our first name.
If you're a civilian, just remember back to Rock Hudson's line in "Ice Station Zebra": "Because of the close quarters here {on a submarine}, we're all on a first-name basis. My first name is 'Captain'." }
In Message 615, you said fuck me and fuck trump, and I had no idea where that came from.
Basically, tequila. Over a decade ago I collected some quotations. One of them (Mitch Radcliffe?) said something like this:
quote:A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention in human history, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
As for my Message 614, as I seem to recall (through the haze) I was trying to be humorous by responding like a typical Trumpette. Though we should all note here that you misquoted me! This is what I had actually posted in Message 614:
DWise1 writes:
Fuck you. Trump won. All your Christian sentiments are worth complete shit. Stop bitching about it already!
Do feel free to point out that specific "fuck trump" text you think I had said in that message.
Also, I had not seen your reply, Message 615. Nor did your reply Message 630 in which you most recently took me to task make any mention at all of the original offending message Message 614, thus robbing me of any context. That was further exasperated by you always pointing to your Message 615 instead of my offending message Message 614.
I guess the humor of responding like a Trumpette just did not translate across as I had intended it to.
I do apologize. It's just that we are all in for an incredible four-year shit-storm. Not just the USA, but most of the world.
Edited by dwise1, : Trying to get the ratings right in the in-line footnote. Had to remember back that it was dental X-rays.
Edited by dwise1, : Specifying "the humor of responding like a Trumpette" to remove ambiguity
For many years I commuted once a month from Orange County to San Diego (California, if you must know). Half-way along that route, there's an immigration check-point. In that area, there are traffic caution signs similar to "Pedestrian crossing" or "Deer crossing". These depict a running Papi and Mami and nio and nia (as I recall from over a decade ago). The label in English say, "Caution.", careful, caution. The label in Spanish says, "Prohibito.", prohibited.
Suppose you're traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.
A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean:
something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing;
a location where a train or bus lets off passengers.
The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
Take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law.
Stop at the stop sign, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop," wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.
Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage:
R[abbi] Meir says:
He who does not stop shall not live long.
R. Hillel says:
Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding.
R. Simon ben Yudah says:
Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
R. ben Isaac says:
Because of the three patriarchs.
R. Yehuda says:
Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: "Be still, and know that I am God."
R. Hezekiel says:
When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign.
R. Gamaliel says:
R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: "Stop, father!" In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: "Out of the mouth of babes."
R. ben Jacob says:
Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: "Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens."
R. ben Nathan says:
When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: "let them serve as signs."
R. Yeshuah says:
... [continues for three more pages]
A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunately omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".
Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
A "prophetic" preacher notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P (sigma-tau-omicron-pi in the Greek alphabet), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by four (the number of the world--north, south, east, and west), equals 666. Therefore, he concludes that stop signs are the dreaded "mark of the beast," a harbinger of divine judgment upon the world, and must be avoided at all costs.
The chicken didn't see the stop sign, and crossed the road.
Reminds me of one of the jokes in Playboy (remembered from my childhood readings in the late 1960's). A woman who had been married three times went in for a medical exam, during which the doctor was surprised to find that she was still a virgin. So she explained how it was because of each husband's occupation. I forget what it was with the first and the second was a fireman always away on duty. Her third husband was a salesman. He would describe to her at great length how great the sex was going to be, but then never get around to actually delivering on his promises.
Like Trump who promises to do all kinds of incredible things that are going to be the best, but then never actually do any of them.
As a foreign language major, German, I took the English class in Old English, which is a recognized language on Wikipedia, nglisc sprc. Basically, at the fall of the Roman Empire, two German tribes, the Angles and the Saxons, migrated to Britain. At the same time, the Vikings also settled -- called "Jutes" in my own schooling, since the Denmark peninsula was Jutland, as in the Battle of Jutland in World War One. Having studied Swedish in the meantime has disabused me of a pet peeve about English.
The extremely basic linguistic history is that the south of England used a predominantly West Germanic language, "Old English", which was already being heavily influenced by the North Germanic influences from the Danes/Jutes/Norse/Vikings.
But then in 1066 along came the Norman invasion from "William the Bastard", a Viking descendant from the north of France. Viking men invaded and conquered the north of France, Normandy. Viking men alone on a foreign shore. What do they do? Take local wives! What results? Children. What language do children learn? The "Mother Tongue", which is to say the language of the ones nurturing them, their mothers. How many generations does it take for the children to not be able to communicate with their fathers? One? Two? Insignificant.
Despite all that, my own personal view of English is as a fundamentally Germanic language atop an extremely French vocabulary.
In my California university's Old English seminar, here's how it went down. Our professor called it a "double howler", because it made two mistakes at the same time. He told us of a Latin quiz in a Catholic school quiz. The students were instructed to translate from Latin to English. "Carpe Diem". OK, "diem" is "day". "Carpe" is a fish, so "carpe diem" is "fish day" which every Catholic knows is FRIDAY. Double howler.
™ Version 4.2
(1)