All is for rockin' or chattin'. The option is yours.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
In a nod to freedom, democracy, and fair-play South Carolina has said that Stephen Colbert's name cannot appear on the Democratic primary ticket for South Carolina.
The secretary forwarded an e-mail to everyone in the office. The Subject Line of the e-mail is "An Atheist in the Woods". Due to the indominable quality of this story it can be found on many websites so I do not have to post the text here.
The story goes that an atheist is walking in the woods. A bear attacks him. The atheist yells out, "Oh my God!" God appears. God says that since the atheist denies God's existence then God will not aid the atheist. The atheist replies that this is fair, but asks God to make the bear a Christian. God does so. The story ends with the Bear bowing its head in prayer, thanking The Lord for the meal it is about to receive.
What I don't understand is what in the name of Jesus "Chicken Fucking" Christ I'm supposed to take away from that story. It was forwarded to me so presumably there is some quality found in the story which eludes me. But what is this quality? The kernels I am able to pick from this steaming pile of crap are:
1) Atheists sometimes exclaim "Oh My God". My guess is that this is supposed to be ironic, or contradictory, or problematic, or inconsistent...or something.
2) God is a 6 year old girl. This is common in Christian beliefs: the idea that God is a 6 year old girl and if you don't tell God how pretty God's dress is, or if you are mean to God then God won't invite you to God's tea party and God may also kick you in the shin or scratch you or allow bears to eat you.
3) Bears can be Christian. While my theological understanding was that bears had no souls and so could not be Christian I was apparently mistaken.
4) Christian bears eat atheists.
Number 4 is the part that causes the most consternation. Since the story ends with the bear preparing to eat the atheist my assumption is that it must be the punch line. Christian bears eating atheists is funny. Sure, bears mauling things is funny, but Christian bears portrayed as killers who desire the flesh of atheists? That seems theologically problematic to me.
And also, a character identified only as "atheist"? That's just lazy. Now, Richard Dawkins mauled by a Christian bear? That's hilarious.
If only because Dawkins is a idiotic fucking douche.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
.... It presents me with a Thing Of Beauty.
Behold the comments thread of this Kotaku Post, about a cancelled line of Assassin's Creed
Long story short, modern day descendants of the Ishmailian sect tangled the books up and they were cut from production.
Then the peanuts gallery starts chirping, and me, oh, how I laugh.
Posted by Roscoe at 12:58 PM
Ire at concentration camp concert
The subheader of the article is "Survivors fume over use of Belgrade facility where 48,000 perished".
Wait for it...
According to the article "Most of the inmates were murdered while being transported in 'gassing trucks' — vans with their exhaust pipes attached to the sealed cabin."
Get it? "Fume"!
Posted by _J_ at 12:17 PM
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
It's Halloween. This means that the office is full of talk about how people don't "celebrate" it. Which astounds me.
When I was a wee tyke in Elementary School we had Halloween parties; they were awesome. And then we went Trick-or-Treating; that was awesome too. And satan was in no way involved in any of it. Satan wasn't involved, for example, in the composition of my Ninja Turtle costume or the composition of my Jedi Costume. Satan was not at our parties, lurking within the punch bowel. Satan was not in my neighborhood when my neighbors gave me candy simply because I presented them with a near-empty sack.
And, yeah, if you research the day you end up at a conversation about All Saints Day and All Hallow's Eve, but those don't involve Satan either. And, yes, if you keep digging you can find the roots of "a celebration at this time of the year" in pagan traditions. But that applies to Christmas as well.
So I really don't know what the fuck these people are talking about given that their claims aren't based in anything but rampant idiocy and ignorance.
So my suggestion is that they shut up, watch a Charlie Brown Halloween, obtain candy from their neighbors, and stop worrying about what a bunch of Gaelic people did hundreds of years ago. And most of all:
SHUT UP ABOUT IT AT WORK!
Or at least allow me to openly refutue your damn claims.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Maybe everyone already watches Zero Punctuation every Wednesday, in which case this post is largely unnecessary (the best kind of unnecessary). And maybe you already saw this one, being as it came out last week and all. If this is not the case, however, then I would direct your attention to last week's installment, in which the reviewer was quite "on".
Posted by MA17 at 8:20 AM
Monday, October 29, 2007
I hate tissues that contain lotion and I have no idea why people buy tissues which contain lotion or scents or any sort of moisture. It makes no sense to me. According to kleenex.com they make lotion, menthol, Ultra Soft, and Anti-Viral brands of tissues.
The point of a tissue is to absorb moisture so that instead of being in, say, your nose the moisture is instead on the tissue. But when the tissue itself is moist then the transfer of moisture is fucked the hell up, and instead of a situation in which one blows their nose, discards the tissue, and moves on with one's life one becomes engaged in an epic battle against the tissue, itself already saturated with moisture, resistant to this new moisture thrust upon it.
It's akin to using a sponge to soak up water. If the desire is to remove the water from the surface one does not wet the sponge before soaking up the water; that would be asinine. So why is it that people flock to these pre-moistened Tissues? What is the appeal?
Yes, they do not hurt one's nose if used repeatedly. But in exchange for less nasal pain one's nose retains most of the moisture that a dry, sensible, tissue would absorb. So one must use more moist tissues to remove the moisture that a single dry tissue could absorb.
This is why I have abandoned the use of Tissues in public and instead utilize toilet paper. Because, luckily, as a society we have managed to avoid putting lotion on the tissue we use to wipe our collective asses; probably because no one in a marketing room / focus group anywhere wants to raise concerns regarding "dry ass".
Because "Searching for Search Engines" would be mundane.
Here is a nifty article about search engines, their history, and how people are trying to overcome Google.
We should totally start a search engine.