I think this email passes the Turing test on accident:
Hi, how's doing? The answer is lying on the surface. You're dead on your feet, man, I can tell! But chill out, there's plenty of people just like you. Do you know that an immense grow of people suffering from a sexual disorder is observed, it's being counted by millions already. Questioned? It's a modern life style. You get-you pay. Everyth [...]
03/03/06 :: Article :: Downloading Is Stealing :: Lies, obfuscation, and a deliberate disrespect for parallelism in analogy
Curiously enough, the volume of interest and public debate is often inversely proportional to the importance of a feature. The reason is that it is much easier to have a firm opinion on a minor feature than on a major one; minor features fit directly into the current state of affairs, whereas major ones - by definition - do not.
[Editor's note: while this was in the context of C++ language featur [...]
this one's for all the naysayers and dream-slayers
who told the Hawk-man it couldn't be done.
Your momma is so fat, she's got a trashbag for a sock.
She's so hairy she looks like she's got Don King in a headlock.
Your momma is so ugly that her dog won't give her fleas.
You could stick her face in dough and make monster cookies.
Your momma is so da [...]
Here's a random wondering I had a moment ago. I think it proves true but it may need some work.
The difference between a fool and an atheist is that a fool scoffs at things he doesn't know he doesn't understand, and an atheist scoffs at things he knows he doesn't understand.
:) I'll work on it.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
God does not play dice with the universe. He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
We laugh at the Indian philosopher, who to account for the support
of the earth, contrived the hypothesis of a huge elephant, and to support
the elephant, a huge tortoise. If we will candidly confess the truth, we
know as little of the operation of the nerves, as he did of the manner in
which the earth is supported: and our hypothesis about animal spirits, or
about the tension and vibrations [...]
"To be ignorant and simple now--not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground--would be to throw down our weapons and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."