Hey.
Current Movie: The Reluctant Astronaut
Return of the Revenge of the Son of Saying Hi to Josiah!
-
Prancing Mad
- Gym Leader
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:24 pm
- Location: Well, At the Computer most Likely.
-
Stevenson
- Shiny Wobbuffet Prince
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:13 pm
- Location: The Undisclosed Location
Is that the one where they're all like, "Argh, I have five puncture wounds on my hand, I must be the devil" or something like that?
Avast ye!
Avast ye!
Stevenson's Vocabulary Word of the Week:
Foment: (verb) To excite or arouse, i.e. 2014's Week of Randomness hopes to foment some activity on the forums.
Stevenson's Latin Phrase of the Week:
Brutum Fulmen: (senseless thunderbolt) This phrase, coined by Pliny the elder, is used to refer to an empty threat.
Foment: (verb) To excite or arouse, i.e. 2014's Week of Randomness hopes to foment some activity on the forums.
Stevenson's Latin Phrase of the Week:
Brutum Fulmen: (senseless thunderbolt) This phrase, coined by Pliny the elder, is used to refer to an empty threat.
Hello, all... I've been pondering. About a very deep, difficult question. One that has befuddled mankind for generations.
Which did come first, the chicken or the egg?
Now after thinking about this, I suppose the answer is, ultimately, a matter of opinion. It depends on a number of factors; for example, what do you consider the first 'chicken'? Is it the first creature born into that particular bird family, regardless of whatever evolutionary differences occur between it then and now? Or is the first case of domesticated fowl the real first chicken?
The 'egg' is no less problematic. Let us assume that the first of the chicken species is in egg-form. That would mean that whatever laid it, however similar, was not a chicken. The final step, perhaps, but not quite there. So, what would you call that egg? It was not laid by a chicken, but it does contain one. Is it a chicken egg? Or would the first real chicken egg not occur until the chicken in the aforementioned egg hatched and eventually had an egg of it's own?
Or, perhaps, I simply think too much.
Which did come first, the chicken or the egg?
Now after thinking about this, I suppose the answer is, ultimately, a matter of opinion. It depends on a number of factors; for example, what do you consider the first 'chicken'? Is it the first creature born into that particular bird family, regardless of whatever evolutionary differences occur between it then and now? Or is the first case of domesticated fowl the real first chicken?
The 'egg' is no less problematic. Let us assume that the first of the chicken species is in egg-form. That would mean that whatever laid it, however similar, was not a chicken. The final step, perhaps, but not quite there. So, what would you call that egg? It was not laid by a chicken, but it does contain one. Is it a chicken egg? Or would the first real chicken egg not occur until the chicken in the aforementioned egg hatched and eventually had an egg of it's own?
Or, perhaps, I simply think too much.
That question I have an answer for... sort of. It depends on how the glass got that way. If it was empty, and had something poured into it, then it is half full. If it was full and had something poured out, it's half empty.Celebifly wrote:Pop question; Is the glass half full or half empty. My answer is so weird....
That's the literal answer, anyway. If you want to consider the more figurative situation, then I suppose my response would translate into 'it depends on my mood'.
So, hello... again. Gah, I'm not used to posting more than once a day. I feel all... loquacious.
-
Silver
- Shiny Pidgeot King
- Posts: 18079
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:25 pm
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
- Contact:
Jambo! If you want to take the religious view on the chicken vs. egg thing, it would be the chicken. Because any religion's all-powerful God would skip the stupid egg and go straight for the chicken, just because they can XD
And Baboon, you DO think too much. Stop that! You're making the rest of us look dumb!
And... um... scientifically, what makes anything anything is the compination of atoms into a form, be it solid, liquid *poked*
...Must... resist... urge... to make... Buddhist jokes... Gah! Buddha was all, 'Nothing exists; life is a dream, and we must find nirvanna to wake up!' That sounds like something Carla would say when she's drunk...
And Baboon, you DO think too much. Stop that! You're making the rest of us look dumb!
And... um... scientifically, what makes anything anything is the compination of atoms into a form, be it solid, liquid *poked*
...Must... resist... urge... to make... Buddhist jokes... Gah! Buddha was all, 'Nothing exists; life is a dream, and we must find nirvanna to wake up!' That sounds like something Carla would say when she's drunk...
"Irregardless" and "Over exaggerated" are NEVER CORRECT EVER because they are redundant
Regardless means "without regard", and adding "ir" on the front actually makes it a double negative; exaggerate means "to overstate" so you're literally saying "over overstate."
Example: I can not exaggerate the importance of this fact enough, regardless of how often people ignore it.
Regardless means "without regard", and adding "ir" on the front actually makes it a double negative; exaggerate means "to overstate" so you're literally saying "over overstate."
Example: I can not exaggerate the importance of this fact enough, regardless of how often people ignore it.