While I don't have much time to write anything here, I thought I'd just post some of my favorites of my answers from my stint on the Hundred Hour Board, in case I ever get locked out again. Read them is you will. Here goes:
QDear 100 Hour Board,
If the animals from South America had a "rumble" with the animals from Africa... which group of animals would win, and why?
- Betting on the piranhas' team
South America. They've got Hungry hungry hippos. (I think). Actually, maybe that's Africa.... Hmmm. Well, either way, I'm putting my money on the Hippos. On a side note, I've seen bacteria and microscopic worms from South America that've sent people to their death beds. If their single cell organisms can do that, just imagine what an entire herd of hippos could do. On a second, and final side note (everyone breathes a sigh of relief), I have no idea why the sudden fixation with hippos. I mean really, could an animal be less intimidating? Oh well. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.
I say let's break this down. We'll pit South American animals against their nearest African counterparts. South America will appear first in each match so you can tell which side they're representing.
The llama vs. the camel: The camel totally wins this one. It can pack a lot more, and it's bigger and faster and smarter. The llama might have an easier time getting into Heaven, though.
The jaguar vs. the lion: Africa wins again. The lion is king of the jungle, even though it lives primarily in the pride lands. Jaguars actually live in the jungle, but they're not even like dukes or anything.
The capybara vs. the hippopotamus (which is actually from Africa, Thor): Hmm, the world's largest rodent vs. a relative of the pig that can.... Well, just look at this article:
A French zoo director was crushed to death on 1 November by a hippopotamus in a rut. Jean Ducuing was cycling around the park in Pessac, near Bordeaux, when Komir, a seven-year-old male hippo, charged through an electrified fence after an employee driving a tractor stopped to distribute food. M Ducing, aged in his 60s, had trained Komir. Posters for the zoo feature a picture of Komir with M Ducing's head in his mouth. AFP - 2 November; International Herald tribune - 3 November
Or this one (my new favorite thing ever, though very sad if I stop to think about it), attributed to the Melbourn Herald Sun, July 16, 1999:“A dwarf nicknamed Od has died in a circus accident in northern Thailand. According to the Pattaya Mail, he 'bounced sideways from a trampoline and was swallowed by a yawning hippopotamus' which was waiting to appear in the next act. Vets on the scene said Hilda the Hippo 'had a gag reflex that automatically caused her to swallow.' The vet said it was the first time the hefty vegetarian had ever eaten a circus performer. Unfortunately, the 1,000-plus spectators continued to applaud widely until common-sense dictated that there had been a tragic mistake.”
The caiman vs. the crocodile: Well, you never heard the prophet warn against spiritual caimans, did you?
The howler monkey vs. the gorilla: One keeps you up all night. The other DESTROYS you. In sign language.
The piranha vs. the African lungfish: This is a draw. The piranha would win in an all-out fight, but if the Amazon ever dried up, the lungfish would win. And when the rainy season began again, he'd crawl out of the muck and be all, “Boo-yeah” to the dried up corpse of the piranha.
The tapir vs. the elephant: They both have flexible snouts, but one weighs 10,000 pounds. And it's not the tapir.
The great anteater vs. the aardvark: Ok, the great anteater takes this one, just for being great. But wait, here comes the other half of the aardvark's tag team: the pangolin! And the pangolin wins just for being the only mammal with scales, and for being able to roll up into a defensive ball!
The spider monkey vs. the chimpanzee: The chimp can use tools, and is the primate closest in its genetic makeup to man (after woman). Plus, it's up to five times stronger than man. I'm actually kinda scared of them myself.
The rhea vs. the ostrich: The ostrich is way more ginormous than the rhea. Plus, its eggs are extremely more valuable. The ostrich could just sell some of its precious eggs and go buy some wicked awesome artillery with the money. As the ostrich roasts the rhea with his sweet flame-thrower, he says in his best Schwarzenegger voice, “you were born a rhea; now you're gonna die a rhea!”
The puma vs. the fossa (Madagascar is technically part of Africa, I think): The fossa jumps about in the trees like it's nothing. I bet they'd eat a puma for lunch. And wash him down with a panther or cougar or something.
The tarantula vs. those scary African sand crabs from “Winged Migration”: They both eat birds. They both give me nightmares. I'd say the tarantula is more poisonous, plus he can blind the crab by flinging spiky hairs off his back with his hind legs, and then maybe the stupid crab will try to rub his eyes and stab them out with those nasty horrifying pinchers.
The mosquito vs. the tsetse fly: Tsetse sounds pretty bad, but I think Malaria is worse. Gotta go with the Mosquito.
The peccary vs. the warthog: They seem like the same animal to me. But the peccary is uglier, and so maybe the warthog would run away or something.
The cavy vs. the meerkat: The meerkat has a better problem-free philosophy, and is much more intelligent-looking than the cavy, which is really just a South American version of a Guinea Pig.
The poison dart frog vs. the killer bee: The froggy here has more poison in him. It takes a whole posse of bees to kill a man, but only the poison from one frog. True, the bee can fly away, but I bet the frog will use his elastic tongue to catch him back anyway and give him a scolding or thrashing!
The sloth vs. anything, pretty much. I hate the sloth. It's the worst animal. And don't go saying it's a special creation of God. 'Cause then why is it one of the cardinal sins? The thing is so slow, algae grows on it, giving it its grimy green fur. And its fingernails give me the heebie-jeebies like none other. Worst animal ever! But let's just pair him off with, say, the cheetah, just for the fun of it. I think I can say, "enough said." And I think I can say it several times.
The guanaco vs. the giraffe: Ok, so let's say all of a sudden I'm a giraffe. And let's say I have to fight this stupid woolly alpaca thing, and I'm realizing, neither of us has any claws or horns or weapons of any kind. But I can run fast. So what I do is I run around and eat all the leaves off the bottoms of the trees. Then when they're all gone, I can feast upon the upper leaves while guano boy dies of starvation. Hey, all's fair in love and war and fictional epic animal battles.
The burro vs. the zebra: If you look closely, you'll see that these are exactly the same animal. Except one's dressed nicer, so he'll do better in job interviews and things. Plus, the zebra knows how to work the crowd, and he has street smarts. You can either go with the zebra and his zany Fruit Stripe gum, or with the burro and his gloomy Colombia House coffee. Zebra, all the way.
The toucan vs. the hornbill: The hornbill could probably spear that fruity toucan and all three of his lame little nephews with that special spearing horn on his nose. “Just follow THIS, Sammy!”
The anaconda vs. the asp: One killed Cleopatra. The other tried to get Jennifer Lopez, but didn't quite make it. Still, though, for sheer girth, I'm going to give this one to the anaconda. The asp is deadly, but nobody ever made a movie (terrible or otherwise) about it.I think that's about it.
You can do with the wildebeest whatever you'd like. Maybe he's held in Africa's reserve as a secret weapon. After all, they killed Mufasa. Oh, and I was going to pair up the rhinoceros with the triceratops, but then I realized that's a dinosaur, not a South American animal. Still, I would pay good money to see that fight, man.
The final tally is South America 6 : Africa 16 (plus the wildebeest, and oh, yeah, the hyena! duh!). Africa wins, hands down. Glad you asked.
QDear 100 Hour Board,
So I have noticed that there are quite a few people here on campus that are democrats. It suprised me when I found out that there is actually a democrat club on campus. So here is my quesion. I don't want to start a political debate, i just want to see this from a church democrats point of view. The church is against abortion, and also against homosexuality. They strongly take their stance in those positions. But the political democrat side is pro abortion and wants more rights for homosexuals. So how does someone who is a church member that is a democrat justify the differences between their political beliefs and church beliefs? I just don't understand how someone could hear a general authority talk about how bad homosexuality is, and then go vote for someone that contridicts that.
- Political Wonderer
ADear Political Wonderer,
That's a valid question. I am not a Democrat, but I dated one seriously for a while, and so I understand a lot of their views that are misconstrued by others. There are several points to consider here.
First, there is no "Gospel Party" or "Mormon Party." Every party out there has policies that in some way conflict with someone's take on the gospel. The Democratic Party's line is one of "pro-Choice" (to use their own term for it), and they are interested in protecting the rights of gay (again, their word, not mine) Americans. These are positions that at first glance seem contrary to the gospel. They may indeed be, but in a moment I'll show you where a lot of this thinking comes from.
The question with homosexuality for a Mormon Democrat is not whether those practices are wrong (we all agree that they are), but whether the government should step in and legislate about it, and whether the people are being protected from discrimination. And don't try to say right away that they shouldn't. I'm pretty far to the right (maybe not quite as much as the Captain), and even I can see that discrimination in one area of a person's life based on a private area is wrong. The gospel stance on how we treat people with same-sex attraction is that we "love the sinner." That does not include preventing them from having certain jobs, nor harming them in any way. Many people will throw out the JST of Matthew 18:9 and say that we are to remove our offending brethren. These scriptures (in my opinion) are evidently about people who are abusive, particularly toward children (as evidences by the context of the chapter). Here is a long passage from Elder Dallin H. Oaks' talk entitled "Same Gender Attraction":
"In a conference address on this same subject, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: 'I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.'
"Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters. Last fall in an interview with a television reporter, one of our Church officials was asked, 'What is being done in the Church to try to stop the atmosphere of hate towards homosexuals?' Nine years ago, during a television interview on this subject, I was questioned about reports that the Church taught or implied 'that these people are somehow pariahs … and these people hate themselves and that this is an attitude brought forth by the Church.'
"More significantly, we also receive such questions from faithful members. A recent letter is illustrative:"
'Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as "evil people," and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.'
"These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22-23, 30, 32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.
"Church leaders are sometimes asked whether there is any place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for persons with homosexual or lesbian susceptibilities or feelings. Of course there is. The degree of difficulty and the pattern necessary to forgo behavior and to control thoughts will be different with different individuals, but the message of hope and the hand of fellowship offered by the Church is the same for all who strive.
"I tried to describe the crucial distinctions in my answer to the television reporter who implied that the Church taught that 'these people are somehow pariahs.' I said:
"'The person that’s working [to resist] those tendencies ought not to feel himself to be a pariah. Now, quite a different thing is sexual relations outside of marriage. A person engaging in that kind of behavior should well feel guilt. They should well feel themselves estranged from God, who has given commandments against that kind of behavior. It’s not surprising to me that they would feel estranged from their church. What surprises me is that they would feel that the Church can revoke God’s commandments. … To the woman taken in adultery (which is a pretty good precedent for us), … [the Savior] was merciful and loving … , but he said, ‘Go thy way and sin no more.’ He loved the sinner; he condemned the sin. I think the Church does the same thing, imperfectly perhaps, but that’s what we teach our members: love the sinner, condemn the sin."
The most faithful Democratic Mormon is not trying to say that the church (ie. God) needs to change its stance on homosexuality. That person is often trying to say that the church (ie. the members) does. My aforementioned ex-girlfriend, by the way, participated in the Oakland, CA (or was it San Jose?) chapter of MESJ (pronounced "Message," though I was always telling her she should move to have the pronunciation officially changed to "Massage"), and she told me that the issue of same-sex attraction actually came up in a meeting, but the group decided not to touch that issue because it was one on which the various members of the group were split.
That's probably enough on that matter. On to the abortion issue: I am definitely not qualified to speak on this issue, but it has been my experience that most Mormon Democrats (hereafter referred to as Mormocrats for the sake of convenience and humor) are decidedly anti-abortion. This does not mean, however, that they necessarily are in favor of laws that prohibit abortion.
Now, obviously abortion is a vile and disgusting commission of the worst possible of acts against the (arguably) most innocent of victims. Before I go any further with this, let me reiterate that I am merely trying to defend the opinions of others, and I do not herein claim to maintain these positions in my own personal politics, so please do not yell at me. Anyway, the real issue that lies at the center of this matter is not whether a certain thing is against the commandments of the gospel, but whether it's the government's responsibility to step in. This can be seen as a matter of agency.
I've heard two theories about Satan's plan. We'll call them theory "L" and theory "R" (which stand for "left" and "right," in case you missed it). Theory "L" is that Satan was trying to force everyone to be righteous. An obvious way we could combat such a move from Satan would be to only worry about our own righteousness, and let others decide for themselves. Theory "R" is that Satan would make sure everyone was righteous by taking away the consequences of sin. This is the sort of thing you hear about from liberals--the idea that crime can be reduced by legalizing marijuana, for example. That may be an effective way to prevent crime, but it is not an effective way to prevent people from smoking marijuana. This is the same issue for many Mormocrats. They understand that abortion is against the commandments. They often just don't think that it should be against the law, as that limits a person's agency. Another argument they'll use is that during times when abortion was illegal, abortions still happened, but in unsafe conditions by people who were not doctors, thus putting the mother's life in danger as well. Those babies were not saved, and in those cases the mothers were often lost, too.
For the final thread in the tapestry of this answer, we'll have to assume (merely for the sake of illustration) that you're a Republican (which I also am not). To turn your questions around on you, the political Republican side is pro-tobacco and seems to largely ignore the commandments we've been given along with our responsiblity as stewards of the earth (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20. Then think about McDonald's and Walmart and the effect these uber-corporations have on the land and its resources). So how does someone who is a church member that is a Republican justify the differences between their political beliefs and church beliefs? I think the answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.
The Democratic Party does a seemingly better job that the Republican Party of a) keeping the commandments about caring for the poor, b) preaching the equality spoken of in Mosiah 27:3, and c) renouncing war (Doctrine and Covenants 98:16), as well as other matters that have been mentioned already, or that can be found by checking out http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/about-us/mission.html. I am going to send a copy of this to their contact e-mail to see if they feel it does the issue justice.
And that's all I have to say about that. Wow. Sorry I got carried away.
--Soapbox of Lies
CDear 100 Hour Board,
Sorry Uffish, I do have gmail otherwise I would thank you directly. You still rock though, and so does Skippy. Oh, and now BHM rocks too. Whoever BHM is. Anyone who likes granola people rocks.
I like people granola. Do I rock?
QDear 100 Hour Board,
I caught this Preying Mantis today and as it walked it would take a few steps, snatch at the air, and hop 3 inches. Take a few steps snatch at the air, hop forward three inches... So I put in a tree and it sort of continued in this pattern--climbing a bit and reaching out for leaves, etc. So I'm wondering exactly how much of a preying mantis' brain is instinct and how much is intellect. Preying manti are cool!
- Deb Robbins
Well, insects are strange things. The best argument I found on the instinct vs. intellect thing was actually on some Islaamic studies website. Check out the idea: colonies of ants and bees have an advanced society with complex inner workings that we humans could never hope to achieve. However, those communities are probably exactly like communities of ants from thousands of years ago. Humans, on the other hand, have had various ages (e.g. The Bronze Age or the Nuclear Age). We advance ourselves, and that sets us apart from the insects. Yes, maybe they have fascinating systems, but there's never a time when an insct says to itself, "Hey! I have a better idea on how to do this stuff." According to most modern scientists, insects are creatures of instinct, and not intellect. They're still cool, though. Have you noticed that mantises look a lot like aliens?
Oh, and Brainy Smurf wanted me to mention one more thing. "Mantis" comes from the Greek word for prophet or diviner. Greek suffixes seem to confuse people when it comes to pluralization. So here are some basic rules and then some examples of times when they're commonly misused: If a word from the Greek ends in "us," it is changed to an "i" to make it plural. If it ends in "is," it changes to "es." If it ends in "um," it changes to "a." Examples: axis=axes, focus=foci, agendum=agenda. Got it? Now the proper pluralization of mantis is "mantises," or if you want to sound cool and educated (which you obviously do), "mantes" (pronounced MAN-teez). You can indeed use the "i" at the end of cacti and octupi. "cactuses," "cactus," and "octopuses" are all correct alternative plural spellings of those words, too. Note that those words both have Greek roots. Walrus, which comes from Scandanavian roots, is not ever correctly rendered "walri." Use "walrus" or "walruses" instead.
QDear 100 Hour Board,
What do you think about Descartes message, "I think therefore I am"? Do you think that he knew who he was before he said this or do you think that he thinks? Speaking of thinking, what do you think about the Thinker? Do you think the guy that posed for that got tired? Because, hello, I mean wouldn't you? And Tom Selleck in those 80's shorts and I love the Island Hopper uniforms. Love Yourself!
- Love me like you love Cows
ADear Love you from a distance,
We do appreciate when you split up unrelated questions into separate posts."Cogito ergo sum" is a great philosophy in my opinion. I have many wannabe friends who say things just to sound all nihilistic and ethereal. So the whole Descartes thing comes in handy when they say stuff like, "How do we even know if any of us exists (well, they say "exist," but I can't bring myself to consciously type bad grammar)?" To me, "I think, therefore I am" is the perfect counter to this. Obviously you exist if you're able to wonder if you do. Something is doing the wondering. The Thinker always makes me think of Dobie Gillis. I think that would be a cool name for a kid, but I bet everyone would think I got it from "Dobby" (a.k.a. Wannabe Gollum) of Harry Potter fame. The Thinker, though, is pretty neat. Statues can tell us a lot about ancient cultures. The Thinker tells me that back in the day before T.V. Guide or Uncle John's bathroom reader, they used to just sit there and think. What a neat concept! I don't think anyone had to pose for too long. The rest of your question doesn't really seem to be a question, so I'm not going to touch it.
QDear 100 Hour Board,
It seems the new athletic building has come complete with it’s own strawberry patch. Are there any policies (rules) on (against) students (me) picking (eating) the berries? Are there any other edible fruits growing on campus?
A hungry student
ADear (esteemed) hungry (homeless) student (drifter),
The school (university) doesn't (does not) have (maintain) any policy (rule) against (precluding) the consumption (and subsequent digestion) of the strawberries (which are not actually berries). Students (you) can (may) eat (devour) the strawberries (not berries), but take heed (precaution): Physical Facilities (the Grounds crew) sprays (drenches) the soil (glorified word for dirt) with pesticides and herbicides (various poisons). Eat (ingest) them (the strawberries) if you (hungry student) will (want), but wash (rinse) them (the strawberries) before (prior to) doing so (eating them [the strawberries]). Thanks (grammercy) to Valerie (that's her real name) in the Physical Facilities (grounds) office (place of work).
p.s. (postscript) You (hungry student) had better (should) get there (arrive) before (prior to) I (Greedy Smurf) do (get there).
And don't ever write like that again (please).
i have seen the modern-day prophet playing cards at macey's by the checkout counters. however, i haven't been there in a while, so no guarantees.-
ADear all,Oh boy! It's punctuation time! Today's lesson: the hyphen (I promise I'm not making fun, but I thought this sentence was too funny to pass up).
We use a hyphen to connect an adjective to a noun when they're both being used to describe a noun. For example, when describing the prophet (noun), we call him "modern-day." The adjective "modern" is linked by a hyphen to the noun "day."
We don't do the same thing when the noun comes first. For example, we say "brick red house." To descibe a house that is the color of bricks. No hyphen. If we want to describe a house made of red bricks, though, we would call it a "red-brick" house. Or if we want to describe a red house made of bricks (maybe brown bricks painted red?) we would say "red brick house," since the red and brick aren't connected.
We hyphenate two nouns, as well, when they are describing another noun. Thus, "He has a dog-day mentality," or "That's a nice ice-cream-man mustache."
The reason I bring this up here is because this sentence is missing a hyphen, so it's saying something Peanut probably never intended. See? Peanut saw the modern-day prophet playing cards at Macey's. "Modern-day" is describing "prophet," whereas "modern-day-prophet" should be describing cards. It just makes it sound like Peanut saw President Hinckley playing poker at Macey's. Funny, huh? Oh, nevermind. I think I'm probably alone on this one....
QDear 100 Hour Board,
What do you do if someone threatens to scare you so badly you'll wet yourself? Is there any way to prepare yourself other then going to the bathroom previous to the time when you think you'll be scared?
- Wetless and Waiting
QDear 100 Hour Board,
Why do they say that it is not a good idea to eat "jack" rabbits when hunting? In other words, cottontail rabbits are considered okay to eat but the "jack" aren't. What's the deal? Can I eat one? What might happen?
Jack rabbits are actually hares. There is a high level of superstition surrounding hares. It has been believed that witches transmogrify themselves into hares. Hares also have longer legs and tend to run faster (70 km/hr!) and be more active, so the meat is tougher and stringier. Stick to rabbits if you must eat a lagomorph.
Hunters aren't the only ones who don't eat hares. Have you ever gotten a hare in your soup? What do you do? You send it back.
QDear 100 Hour Board,
Why do the word spelled B-R-E-A-K and the word spelled S-P-E-A-K not rhyme?
--Kitty the Badger
ADear Kitty the Badger,
I hope this post isn't lost on you. It's been seen that our language can be tough to sort through, though. I'm in danger of anger when I wonder or ponder about how easily "laughter" becomes "slaughter." So, do not despair when the good food of language is full of worms, or storms of linguistic trickery blow (and how!); keep in mind that the wind and rain go away, and again you'll feast on breast of beast that's better (but close) to those whose descriptions you'll ever read (or have read). My point is this: we English speakers are rule-breakers, and have come home to an accord about how a word is said, so "plaid" and "raid" are friends (not fiends) and you can bear to hear that there's no thought of a drought, that we're far from war and from harm and we're warm, and that "worm" is the norm.
--Poet (with help from his imaginary fiends, Darren and Warren)
Well, I haven't even delved into the confessor's stuff. I just searched for brainy, jokey, and poet so far. I'm sure I'll have plenty more that I want to keep for posterity's sake. Thanks for indulging me.