copyright? i am not aware of this internet tradition ...

the perfect accessory for beer-bingeing uroTrash!

whatever happened to that thing that they used to have on all the planes ...

... called "autopilot" ... ?

"it is best not to wear this outfit at the beach unless you are prepared to fight off seagulls and crabs."

heh.

nelson sakaguchi, bank director (brazil)

louis gottschalk, reagan psychologist

'nuff said

so what you putting in the teensy drawer?

of course, if you have to actually claim that your product is "cool", it probably isn't.

"attuned to youth culture"

hahahah

hard to believe these guys are too nerdy to remember words like "cool"

classic dilbert

ah finally -- the new york times crossword cthulhu edition

i remember sometime during the previous millenium watching an episode of star trek: tng where picard, laforge and dr. crusher are being held hostage and picard takes apart laforge's visor, and, attempting to make a weapon, begins hacking its circuits. he points to this and that in the device, saying to the doc, "and this here is the so-and-so circuit, and over there's the such-and-such ..."

at the time i thought: "i guess they finally stopped making chips smaller in the 23rd century ..."

so where do i sign up for freelance gigs like that? is there a website?

"approach and ask"???

why not just skip the "ask"?
now that would be a con to remember!

''insufficient on its face..."

i knew i shoulda been a judge. i was telling people that four years ago!

actually #2, the terms "exterior walls" or "outside walls" are correctly used here, since they normally refer to the walls of a structure that separate the inside from the elements, as opposed to the "interior walls", which form rooms inside the structure. and it's the exterior walls that need to be insulated.

but i know what you mean! ;)

this sounds straight out of roald dahl's "the great automatic grammatisator" (1960)

i can sign for 1, 2, 3 or 4
get three weeks off in a year or more
save up and get my very own slr
cos i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank

can you seen the bullet's high velocity
it can blow a man's arm off at the count of three
if i get my hands on one of those
i'm something to watch out for
i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can
yes i can

don't care whereabouts they send me now
send pictures postcards to my old mother and father
so when i come home they'll have someone to be proud of
i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can drive (drive!) my very own tank
yes i can maim (maim!)

the stranglers, "tank" (1978)

what? no fin fang foom?!?

"many things will be clarified in the last days."

now there's a 50-story leap of faith for you ...

"for now, a position of absolute denial (of gods or fairies) isn't warranted. there's no evidence that they don't exist."

you do understand that it's impossible to prove a negative? which is why this line of reasoning is not a plausible -- and therefore rational -- argument for even the possible existence of entities (fairies?!?) or forces for which we have no positive evidence. at best it's fodder for children's books and hollywood movies, but not for serious debate.

any "atheist" who claims to know "there is no god" is a believer, I think. How could you hold such a view without a leap of faith?

i'm holding a ball. i "claim to know" that the ball will hit the ground if i release it. is this a leap of faith? maybe. the only way to know for sure -- and to prove my believe was not a leap -- is to release it.

but what if i don't release it, never proving my claim? is my belief still a leap of faith?

what if we never find proof of god's existence -- as would be the case if god did not in fact exist? is the atheist's belief still a leap of faith?

or does the plausibility of one's belief -- not the belief in and of itself -- determine whether it is a leap of faith?

if so, i would therefore conclude that my belief that the ball will hit the ground -- even if i never release it -- is not a leap of faith.

so the nut of the matter is not whether god exists, but whether it is plausible, and therefore rational to believe so.