just remembered: I have a blog. That's pretty cool, I guess. Not that I use it all that much because, well, whatev, but still...good to know. And being that I'm tired of doing essay studying and such, well, I guess it's time to do some speaking.
Okay, so what's new? Well, I wrote 30 pages of a story, decided it was crap, and am now about to start over. That would be the Ripp story, the eventual 9 book saga. Yeah, like that's going to happen. Heh. This coming Saturday, check out the Australian newspaper if you don't want to see a mention of my name. I've entered this competition called the Vogel. The winner gets published, among other things. He or she also gets a spaceship. My understanding is that it's just a cardboard box, but oh well, a spaceship's a spaceship...unless it can't actually get into space. Now I want to watch 'firefly', that was a damn awesome show. Stupid whoever-the-hell decided it should be canceled. Bah! Bah, I say. Anyway, the results of this contest are announced on Saturday, and while I assume I won't win, it would be cool. Worth looking at a paper for anyway, perhaps.
So...what's new? Well...I gave a speech at a 21st. Shane's specifically. I still haven't seen the video but apparently I did well. I was a bastard though, I kept pointing out how nervous Josh was. What a sucker. But it was pretty good. That was probably the high point of the evening. The low point was probably when I picked a fight with the bouncers at the Elephant. I mean, sure they wouldn't let me in even after they said I could go in if I got someone to come out to get me and I did, and sure they didn't mention that the place was closing in a few minutes anyway, but I also apparently was holding a rose at the time or something and I have no memory of THAT, so I don't completely trust my memory of the occasion anymore. Wow, that was a while ago and my mood is about the same. It's possible I should maybe do something about being happy again, that would be pretty cool.
OH! OH! OH! Oh damn. Usually when I say that something really interesting comes to me and I say that as though it occured before I said it. Didn't work this time, maybe it only works vocally. Sigh. Wait! I know. This is slightly interesting...nup. Didn't work that time either.
Screw this, I'm going to the squirrel park. I'll write a blog when I have something interesting to say. Or at least something that's at least slightly amusing. Assuming I can be bothered. Blog = low priority, I think...obviously.
Sigh...okay, should probably go back to essay. Or maybe I'll just watch House.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
the poem that got hit by a frizbee
I'm waiting for people to come over. don't know how long it'll be. so i'm just gonna write a random poem off the top of my head. I don't know what it'll be about, how long it'll be or where it will go, and I will not edit it. I'm just going to keep going and end it when the car pulls in any second. Here we go now!!
One day I was going for a walk,
And I came across the bearer of pork,
T'was a pig walking happily along,
And with that my hunger became strong.
I chased that pig, wanting it's meat,
But it was too damned quick on its feet,
So I chased it long, I chased it well,
But it got away, leaving only a smell.
I sat on a bench and put my face in my hands,
My stomach had not received its demands,
So it rebelled against me and left my torso,
And it took off too, moving not too slow.
From that day onwards, I have not eaten,
Simply because by a pig I was beaten,
And all I want is for my stomach to return,
I want to eat meat even if it is burned.
Okay, screw it, that'll do.
One day I was going for a walk,
And I came across the bearer of pork,
T'was a pig walking happily along,
And with that my hunger became strong.
I chased that pig, wanting it's meat,
But it was too damned quick on its feet,
So I chased it long, I chased it well,
But it got away, leaving only a smell.
I sat on a bench and put my face in my hands,
My stomach had not received its demands,
So it rebelled against me and left my torso,
And it took off too, moving not too slow.
From that day onwards, I have not eaten,
Simply because by a pig I was beaten,
And all I want is for my stomach to return,
I want to eat meat even if it is burned.
Okay, screw it, that'll do.
Monday, February 18, 2008
War vs Natural Selection
This is one on religion. There are no arguments against the existence of any sort of god or gods in here, just statements of fact on the nature of religion and science. To any friend who would get pissed off at reality and by extension at me, don't read on.
I think it could be argued that the only people who do not believe in evolution are those who don't actually understand it, often because they do not bother to. Creationists who try to sway minds by sprouting out rubbish such as 'the eye could not possibly have evolved by chance' (or the wing, or the...whatever) should stop coming up with crap and pick up a proper book on the subject instead. It takes great minds entire books to explain evolution, and they think they can argue against it after only reading a short summary paragraph written by someone else who doesn't understand it? Anyway, evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. Random mutation leads to unrandom selection, keeping in mind that 'unrandom' does not automatically mean 'concious'. Without any evidence for their own beliefs, and without any evidence against that of evolution, creationists tend to go for one last pathetic 'argument' against science and evolution, something along the lines of 'even scientists don't agree with each other, so how can it be true?'
There is religion, and there is science. One is based on rational thought, and one is not. I probably don't have to spell out which is which. But the fact of the matter is that yes, there is dissension in the ranks of scientists. There is disagreement over specific details (not over the theories at large, but over the little details that the general public wouldn't understand without research anyway), and creationists often try to blow this out of proportion. While they do this, they seem to completely ignore the fact that, while there is disagreement within science, there is far more disagreement within religion. Both between religions, and within them, and there's not a single scrap of evidence for any one religion, or any one interpretation of a specific religion, to be considered superior. Even so, a scientist would NEVER claim that the lack of proof for God's (or Zeus's, or Ganesh's) existence automatically translates into proof FOR evolution, but this is EXACTLY what the creationist argument turns out to be. They not only postulate that disagreements between scientists over the finer details of evolution are equal to a denial of evolution itself, but they seem to think that this would also be an argument FOR creationism.
Scientist A: Hmmm, I think the human ancestors lost their hair because it made them more prone to overheating.
Scientist B: No, no, no, I think it was to do with sexual selection.
Creationist: Ah HA!!! A difference of opinion! I knew it! Well, I would have intrepeted whatever you said to fit in with my beliefs anyway, but now I don't have to because you don't agree!!! Evolution is FALSE!!! GOD EXISTS!!!
Anyway...
Yes, it could easily be said that there is a war going on between Science and Religion, but only metaphorically. However, it can be said LITERALLY that there is war WITHIN religions. It could and has been easily argued that there is still war amongst religions in modern times, but no matter what your viewpoint, there have unarguably been wars amongst religions in the past. One of the key contributing factors towards the religions that dominate today is that those who won the religious wars in the past were victorious. If they hadn't been, there would almost definately be a different set of religions dominating today, which is a sobering thought as advocates have always declared the truth of their own religion above all others, without even the slightest bit of superiour evidence. It is one specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another, and another, and another, the wars being both metaphorical and actual in different times and places. You'd think that those who argue that science is weaker because scientists have differing opinions would remember this, but that is apparently too much to ask. Not only do they ignore the hypocritical nature of their argument, but they seem to be blind to the fact that it doesn't even apply to science in the first place!
There is disagreement amongst scientists, but that is the very nature of science. If there was no disagreement, then everything would just be taken on faith, the beliefs that scientists brought are brought up with being the only thing that they will believe at all, but then they would no longer be scientists practising science, they would just be members of another religion, and other people with better minds would just carry on with science but call it something else. If all scientists agreed with everything just like that, there would be no improvement to our understanding of the universe at all, and it is understanding that has given us the light bulb, medicine...everything modern that is designed by humans that we take for granted, basically. And the fact is that, although there is disagreement amongst scientists, unlike religion is is NOT analogous to war, but is far closer to a form of Natural Selection. Science may have discovered Natural Selection, but Natural Selection was working on science long before its own discovery.
Basically, natural selection (I think it's meant to have capitals, but whatever, fingers getting tired of reaching for the key!) works on all organisms of all species, plant, animal, bacteria, whatever, by killing off anything that doesn't have what it takes to survive in the world before it can reproduce and pass on its genes, or at least last long enough reproduce as many times as the stronger rivals in its species. Basically, those genes that tend to make stronger animals survive, and those that don't tend to perish due to the altercations of the gene pool. The strong live. The weak die. This is the process that got us here. This will have told you absolutely nothing about evolution unless you already understand it, because there is far more to it than that and it is all remarkable and beautiful stuff, but that is the basic premise. Now, to apply it to science. There are a great deal of scientific hypothesis and theories at any one time, and as I have already shown, this is far from a weakness of science, and it far from makes it a great self-contradictory jumble (as you find in any holy book you could mention). It isn't a bad thing, because all of these theories don't last! Scientists continue to study the world, and it is only those theories that best fit the evidence, and survive the falsification tests that are inflicted upon them, that survive. The Natural Selection of Science combs out the theories that are too 'weak' to survive, and only the 'strong', the best, the ones that explain the most and can lead to the most further discovery survive. In some cases, there are wars amongst scientists (well, at least in the sense that there is argument and bitterness between opposing colleagues, but there is little or no death and destruction as a result, a scientific war is just an immature, bitchy contest between two scientists, there's nothing like the destruction or body count that takes place in a religious war), but these are arguments between men, not between knowledge and theories. The men may fight, but the theories themselves will have to be tested for their WORTH, unlike...you know.
In conclusion, I still beleive that of the three sibling religions that were each derived and made up from each other; judaism, christianity and islam, christianity is probably the most moral and worthy. Despite other problems that the others share, christianity at least doesn't enforce circumcision upon infants (which is far worse for the girls in the thankfully few muslim societies that practice it). Also, christianity tends to treat women with the respect they deserve, even if the bible doesn't. Fortunately, the concept that God went through all animals in existence as possible companions for Adam before finally SETTLING for woman, (apparently because they're the lowliest?!) is one that christianity has largely left behind in modern times. anyway, this is for you, maynard! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!
I think it could be argued that the only people who do not believe in evolution are those who don't actually understand it, often because they do not bother to. Creationists who try to sway minds by sprouting out rubbish such as 'the eye could not possibly have evolved by chance' (or the wing, or the...whatever) should stop coming up with crap and pick up a proper book on the subject instead. It takes great minds entire books to explain evolution, and they think they can argue against it after only reading a short summary paragraph written by someone else who doesn't understand it? Anyway, evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. Random mutation leads to unrandom selection, keeping in mind that 'unrandom' does not automatically mean 'concious'. Without any evidence for their own beliefs, and without any evidence against that of evolution, creationists tend to go for one last pathetic 'argument' against science and evolution, something along the lines of 'even scientists don't agree with each other, so how can it be true?'
There is religion, and there is science. One is based on rational thought, and one is not. I probably don't have to spell out which is which. But the fact of the matter is that yes, there is dissension in the ranks of scientists. There is disagreement over specific details (not over the theories at large, but over the little details that the general public wouldn't understand without research anyway), and creationists often try to blow this out of proportion. While they do this, they seem to completely ignore the fact that, while there is disagreement within science, there is far more disagreement within religion. Both between religions, and within them, and there's not a single scrap of evidence for any one religion, or any one interpretation of a specific religion, to be considered superior. Even so, a scientist would NEVER claim that the lack of proof for God's (or Zeus's, or Ganesh's) existence automatically translates into proof FOR evolution, but this is EXACTLY what the creationist argument turns out to be. They not only postulate that disagreements between scientists over the finer details of evolution are equal to a denial of evolution itself, but they seem to think that this would also be an argument FOR creationism.
Scientist A: Hmmm, I think the human ancestors lost their hair because it made them more prone to overheating.
Scientist B: No, no, no, I think it was to do with sexual selection.
Creationist: Ah HA!!! A difference of opinion! I knew it! Well, I would have intrepeted whatever you said to fit in with my beliefs anyway, but now I don't have to because you don't agree!!! Evolution is FALSE!!! GOD EXISTS!!!
Anyway...
Yes, it could easily be said that there is a war going on between Science and Religion, but only metaphorically. However, it can be said LITERALLY that there is war WITHIN religions. It could and has been easily argued that there is still war amongst religions in modern times, but no matter what your viewpoint, there have unarguably been wars amongst religions in the past. One of the key contributing factors towards the religions that dominate today is that those who won the religious wars in the past were victorious. If they hadn't been, there would almost definately be a different set of religions dominating today, which is a sobering thought as advocates have always declared the truth of their own religion above all others, without even the slightest bit of superiour evidence. It is one specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another specific-religion-that-has-no-evidence-for-it against another, and another, and another, the wars being both metaphorical and actual in different times and places. You'd think that those who argue that science is weaker because scientists have differing opinions would remember this, but that is apparently too much to ask. Not only do they ignore the hypocritical nature of their argument, but they seem to be blind to the fact that it doesn't even apply to science in the first place!
There is disagreement amongst scientists, but that is the very nature of science. If there was no disagreement, then everything would just be taken on faith, the beliefs that scientists brought are brought up with being the only thing that they will believe at all, but then they would no longer be scientists practising science, they would just be members of another religion, and other people with better minds would just carry on with science but call it something else. If all scientists agreed with everything just like that, there would be no improvement to our understanding of the universe at all, and it is understanding that has given us the light bulb, medicine...everything modern that is designed by humans that we take for granted, basically. And the fact is that, although there is disagreement amongst scientists, unlike religion is is NOT analogous to war, but is far closer to a form of Natural Selection. Science may have discovered Natural Selection, but Natural Selection was working on science long before its own discovery.
Basically, natural selection (I think it's meant to have capitals, but whatever, fingers getting tired of reaching for the key!) works on all organisms of all species, plant, animal, bacteria, whatever, by killing off anything that doesn't have what it takes to survive in the world before it can reproduce and pass on its genes, or at least last long enough reproduce as many times as the stronger rivals in its species. Basically, those genes that tend to make stronger animals survive, and those that don't tend to perish due to the altercations of the gene pool. The strong live. The weak die. This is the process that got us here. This will have told you absolutely nothing about evolution unless you already understand it, because there is far more to it than that and it is all remarkable and beautiful stuff, but that is the basic premise. Now, to apply it to science. There are a great deal of scientific hypothesis and theories at any one time, and as I have already shown, this is far from a weakness of science, and it far from makes it a great self-contradictory jumble (as you find in any holy book you could mention). It isn't a bad thing, because all of these theories don't last! Scientists continue to study the world, and it is only those theories that best fit the evidence, and survive the falsification tests that are inflicted upon them, that survive. The Natural Selection of Science combs out the theories that are too 'weak' to survive, and only the 'strong', the best, the ones that explain the most and can lead to the most further discovery survive. In some cases, there are wars amongst scientists (well, at least in the sense that there is argument and bitterness between opposing colleagues, but there is little or no death and destruction as a result, a scientific war is just an immature, bitchy contest between two scientists, there's nothing like the destruction or body count that takes place in a religious war), but these are arguments between men, not between knowledge and theories. The men may fight, but the theories themselves will have to be tested for their WORTH, unlike...you know.
In conclusion, I still beleive that of the three sibling religions that were each derived and made up from each other; judaism, christianity and islam, christianity is probably the most moral and worthy. Despite other problems that the others share, christianity at least doesn't enforce circumcision upon infants (which is far worse for the girls in the thankfully few muslim societies that practice it). Also, christianity tends to treat women with the respect they deserve, even if the bible doesn't. Fortunately, the concept that God went through all animals in existence as possible companions for Adam before finally SETTLING for woman, (apparently because they're the lowliest?!) is one that christianity has largely left behind in modern times. anyway, this is for you, maynard! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye! na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Useless Bureaucracy
Yes, I DID have to look up 'bureaucracy' in order to spell it. Like YOU'RE perfect. I'm complaining about that because it appears that in order to be on Sez's list of contacts or whatever, you have to do more than just ONE post. Siiiiigh! I assume that applies to other people as well.
So. I've just been out in town. Do you know what it's like to be at the exeter and not drinking? It's quite the annoyance. Everyone's sitting there drinking, and the girl who literally tried to scratch your eyes out is sitting at a nearby table (long story...well not that long...basically, was at a party one time, moved through the crowd, allegedly knocked her drink ((another friend said i actually did, but only a small amount, and she'd been looking for a fight with people earlier anyway)), so once outside she came up behind me outside and poured the drink over the back of my head, the same drink she was pissed about being spilt, try and find the logic in THAT! So I was a little annoyed by this, so later when she came back outside after running inside like a big fat coward so I couldn't get her back, I went up to her with a glass of WATER ((as opposed to some vaguely berry-ish alcoholic drink like hers was)), gave her a chance to apologise, she just smirked, so I poured the water over her head. Next thing I know, she's jumping on me and trying to claw my eyes out...literally! I have pictures of the aftermath, scratches right beside my eyes. Then later, when she was leaving, I was still somewhat ANNOYED about all this, so I yelled in a bit of a sing-song 'Who's a psychobitch? I'M not a psychobitch!' and she attacked again, attempting to claw out my eyes yet again, shouting all kinds of unoriginal death threats ((I'LL F--CKING KILL YOU!!!!)) and so forth).
Sez went home as she was tired, although she's still awake now having just completed her costume...got to bed, Sez!...and Bart, Andy, Diego, Astrid, Libby, James, Lu and I went to the gardens party thing. I was there for about twenty minutes before I went to catch my bus.
I gotta say, I really like driving along the hills roads at night. It's awesome. That is what I did after getting off my bus. Now I'm home, drinking a beer...well, trying to drink a beer, but mum's being annoying nearby trying to work the stapler and filing things right behind me. I need my own computer, but it probably wouldn't fit in my room...sigh!
So, fun fact of the night, and it's again about stars. We all know that due to the speed of light, and the distance most of the stars are away from us, that it can take millions of years for the light to reach us. Well, by extension, if we had telescopes that could look at the planets around other stars very far away (which would be difficult to say the least, as the stars are automatically so bright that it's almost impossible to see the planets at all, you can only tell that they're there by the gravitational effects that they have on their sun, but it's really only really big planets that have an effect at all (a planet that is Earth sized is too small to have such effects; undetectable, the planet would have to be Jupiter sized). Anyway, if we could hypothetically see these planets, look down on the surface of them, just as with their star, the light would be taking millions of years to reach us (depending on the amount of light years away it is), so we would literally be looking into the past. Similarly, any alien civilisation of an appropriate distance away who was looking down on the surface of our planet, RIGHT NOW, would be seeing the dinosaurs walking around. I find it interesting! It's interesting!!!!
That is all.
So. I've just been out in town. Do you know what it's like to be at the exeter and not drinking? It's quite the annoyance. Everyone's sitting there drinking, and the girl who literally tried to scratch your eyes out is sitting at a nearby table (long story...well not that long...basically, was at a party one time, moved through the crowd, allegedly knocked her drink ((another friend said i actually did, but only a small amount, and she'd been looking for a fight with people earlier anyway)), so once outside she came up behind me outside and poured the drink over the back of my head, the same drink she was pissed about being spilt, try and find the logic in THAT! So I was a little annoyed by this, so later when she came back outside after running inside like a big fat coward so I couldn't get her back, I went up to her with a glass of WATER ((as opposed to some vaguely berry-ish alcoholic drink like hers was)), gave her a chance to apologise, she just smirked, so I poured the water over her head. Next thing I know, she's jumping on me and trying to claw my eyes out...literally! I have pictures of the aftermath, scratches right beside my eyes. Then later, when she was leaving, I was still somewhat ANNOYED about all this, so I yelled in a bit of a sing-song 'Who's a psychobitch? I'M not a psychobitch!' and she attacked again, attempting to claw out my eyes yet again, shouting all kinds of unoriginal death threats ((I'LL F--CKING KILL YOU!!!!)) and so forth).
Sez went home as she was tired, although she's still awake now having just completed her costume...got to bed, Sez!...and Bart, Andy, Diego, Astrid, Libby, James, Lu and I went to the gardens party thing. I was there for about twenty minutes before I went to catch my bus.
I gotta say, I really like driving along the hills roads at night. It's awesome. That is what I did after getting off my bus. Now I'm home, drinking a beer...well, trying to drink a beer, but mum's being annoying nearby trying to work the stapler and filing things right behind me. I need my own computer, but it probably wouldn't fit in my room...sigh!
So, fun fact of the night, and it's again about stars. We all know that due to the speed of light, and the distance most of the stars are away from us, that it can take millions of years for the light to reach us. Well, by extension, if we had telescopes that could look at the planets around other stars very far away (which would be difficult to say the least, as the stars are automatically so bright that it's almost impossible to see the planets at all, you can only tell that they're there by the gravitational effects that they have on their sun, but it's really only really big planets that have an effect at all (a planet that is Earth sized is too small to have such effects; undetectable, the planet would have to be Jupiter sized). Anyway, if we could hypothetically see these planets, look down on the surface of them, just as with their star, the light would be taking millions of years to reach us (depending on the amount of light years away it is), so we would literally be looking into the past. Similarly, any alien civilisation of an appropriate distance away who was looking down on the surface of our planet, RIGHT NOW, would be seeing the dinosaurs walking around. I find it interesting! It's interesting!!!!
That is all.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Welcome to the Hellmouth
Little Buffy the vampire Slayer reference in that title there, yep, very clever...because I consider this to be something like Hell...although there's no mouth...
Me blogging...this means I am bored and can't be bothered writing anything that's worth reading. Just for future reference, it is UNLIKELY that I will be bothering to put up pictures either. It's also possible that I don't bother blogging after this. Who knows? Who cares? Not me. By gumb.
So...what have I learned today? Nothing quite possibly, but I did learn something that's perhaps interesting (I think it is) yesterday. Many, even most stars in the universe have binary partners, a nearby star that balances them out, and they orbit each other to some extent. I already knew that. I also already knew that our particular sun doesn't have one...that's just something I took for granted. I mean, jeez. As it turns out, I may have spoken too soon. In maths, there's this thing you can do, basically judge the frequency of any wave by looking at its harmonics (musical term, means the notes that add up to the main sound you hear, the signature of some particular musical instrument, it's why they all sound different even when they're playing the same note, the different harmonics all add up and so forth). Well, using this information, and I don't know how so don't ask, you can divide it down or up or possible sideways...whatev. The point is that you can apply this same formula to other things, such as the frequency of mass extinctions on Earth. Some say, based on the evidence, that it's about every 28 million years. One possible reason is that comets hit the planet that often, but WHY that often? One possible explanation is that our sun has a binary partner after all, holy hell, quite a distance away, way outside of the solar system, forever invisible, but there, and that every 28 million years or so, it comes close enough to this great mass of trillions of comets that is outside the solar system and sends some of them merrily on their way to Earth. This other sun is known as Nemesis, even though it's never been seen, and as far as I know the evidence for it is all just conjecture...but it's cool conjecture (or speculation for you people out there who prefer that word, but if you do, I will have no part of it, so I take that back...people who say 'speculation' are the worst kind of evil and it would be best for humanity if they were launched into space. Wait...I usually say speculation...oh yeah. Okay, so as it turns out, the guilty party are those who say 'conjecture'. You all must DIE!!)
Yes. Indeed. Well, I found it interesting. Whether you do or not...I don't care. I'm just typing for the sake of typing really. And now I shall stop.
That is all.
Me blogging...this means I am bored and can't be bothered writing anything that's worth reading. Just for future reference, it is UNLIKELY that I will be bothering to put up pictures either. It's also possible that I don't bother blogging after this. Who knows? Who cares? Not me. By gumb.
So...what have I learned today? Nothing quite possibly, but I did learn something that's perhaps interesting (I think it is) yesterday. Many, even most stars in the universe have binary partners, a nearby star that balances them out, and they orbit each other to some extent. I already knew that. I also already knew that our particular sun doesn't have one...that's just something I took for granted. I mean, jeez. As it turns out, I may have spoken too soon. In maths, there's this thing you can do, basically judge the frequency of any wave by looking at its harmonics (musical term, means the notes that add up to the main sound you hear, the signature of some particular musical instrument, it's why they all sound different even when they're playing the same note, the different harmonics all add up and so forth). Well, using this information, and I don't know how so don't ask, you can divide it down or up or possible sideways...whatev. The point is that you can apply this same formula to other things, such as the frequency of mass extinctions on Earth. Some say, based on the evidence, that it's about every 28 million years. One possible reason is that comets hit the planet that often, but WHY that often? One possible explanation is that our sun has a binary partner after all, holy hell, quite a distance away, way outside of the solar system, forever invisible, but there, and that every 28 million years or so, it comes close enough to this great mass of trillions of comets that is outside the solar system and sends some of them merrily on their way to Earth. This other sun is known as Nemesis, even though it's never been seen, and as far as I know the evidence for it is all just conjecture...but it's cool conjecture (or speculation for you people out there who prefer that word, but if you do, I will have no part of it, so I take that back...people who say 'speculation' are the worst kind of evil and it would be best for humanity if they were launched into space. Wait...I usually say speculation...oh yeah. Okay, so as it turns out, the guilty party are those who say 'conjecture'. You all must DIE!!)
Yes. Indeed. Well, I found it interesting. Whether you do or not...I don't care. I'm just typing for the sake of typing really. And now I shall stop.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
