 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009ANOTHER TIMELESS QUESTION ANSWERED .
< First, some background music, Maestro http://www.nurple.com/sideshow/ < >> PREVIOUS GREAT MYSTERIES SOLVED <<[ < BOTH ATHEISTS, CREATIONISTS HAVE IT WRONG http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/15b2f408f49e8501 < HOW "COLOMBO" DISCOVERED AMERICA... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/9c350823040c0512 < EXTRATERRESTRIALS SUPERVISED CONSTRUCTION OF PYRAMIDS http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a113359482eaad9a < WHY THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA WAS BUILT http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.ed-conrad/msg/484d8f27be250c9e < ================================ < < ANOTHER GREAT MYSTERY SOLVED < Making the rounds of controversial and heated debate once again these days is honest, sensible discussion to answer the time-honored question: < > WHICH CAME FIRST? > THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? < Let's analyze the situation using some good ol' common sense. UNDENIABLE FACT NO. 1: The chicken *couldn't* have come first because, adhering to the ground rules, there had to be an egg from which to hatch the chicken. < Obviously, if there hadn't been an egg, there could *never* have been a chicken. < (Since we all know chickens hatch from eggs. If you have any doubts, ask any farmer.) < UNDENIABLE FACT No. 2: The egg couldn't have come first -- before the chicken -- in this particular scenario because, according to the ground rules, there had not been a previous chicken to have laid the egg from which a chicken arrived via the conventional route of having been hatched from an egg. < If a chicken, however, *didn't* lay that egg -- not necessarily the chicken in question but a different chicken (even though the rules say there was *no* chicken around to lay an egg to make that chicken), and without an egg there can be no chicken, since even a numbskull is aware that chickens come from eggs. < Ditto for the chicken, since there theoretically was no egg hatched to eventually become a chick, then a chicken -- and it had to become a hen because everyone knows hens lay chickens and roosters are only around to wake up people at 5 a.m.. < However, without an egg, logic dictates that there could not have been a chicken (or, for that matter, an egg), since the egg in our theoretical question was *still* an egg and had not yet become a chicken).) < But let's look at it from *another* less-complicated angle. < Say there was a chicken that *had* laid an egg that had become a chicken after hatching from the egg but, the evidence later clearly indicates that there had been no chicken around to lay any eggs from which the chiicken had hatched to lay more eggs to hatch many more eggs to create many more chickens. < The problem is compounded by the undeniable fact that the chicken in question, which under normal circumstances would lay some eggs, *did not* lay the egg that is subject of debate in "Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg," since the egg -- at least theoretically -- couldn't have been laid by that chicken (the chicken in question), unless of course the chicken had been around longer than the egg. < However -- and here it begins to get a bit complicated -- in this particular situation, this particular chicken could not have come first -- *before* the egg -- since chickens come from eggs and the egg could not have come first, since chickens have to be around to lay eggs that eventually wind up as chickens who, in turn, lay more eggs to create more chickens. < It stands to reason that the chicken could not have become a chicken if there was no (chicken) egg, and no egg could ever become a chicken if there hadn't been a chicken around to lay the egg that in turn would result in a chicken -- whether or not this particular chicken -- would eventually lay more eggs to hatch more chickens. < The only obvious answer -- other than creation or evolution --- is that the chicken must've been carrying the egg when it crossed the road -- the subject of that other brain-twister, "Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?" -- meaning that the only reasonable answer to "Which Came First: The Chicken or the Egg" is that it's a dead heat. < Both obviously arrived at the first time, either the chicken carrying the egg or the egg containing the chicken or vice-versa, or versa-VISA (that is, if either was carrying THAT credit card (NOT Mastercharge). < The only remaining question, then, is where both the chicken and/or the egg had come from, which is a bit more complicated than "Which Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? -- but that, too, will be easily solved, same as other great mysteries of life, if I have a day or two to think about it, and after consulting with my good friends Larry King, Stephen Hawkins and Howard Stern. < Ed Conrad, Ph.D., I.D.I.O.T. < [...] >> WHICH CAME FIRST? >> THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg.  SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ The egg came first. The chicken egg, that is. Something genetically not quite a chicken laid an egg containing a chicken embryo. That hatches and out pops the first chicken. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl. -- Etaoin Shrdlu > < > First, some background music, Maestro [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > < > Ed Conrad, Ph.D., I.D.I.O.T. Jeezuz! Obiously the egg came first: 1/ A snake laid this here egg. 2/ There was internal mutation within this here egg because of cosmic rays 'n all. If a butterfly can emerge from a chrysalis then.... 3/ The egg hatched into a chicken, to give the world its first bird. Q.E.D. Game over, I win! In alt.usage.english, Bullshit Remover wrote: >> WHICH CAME FIRST? >> THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? Define "chicken". Define "egg". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Bullshit Remover wrote: >>> WHICH CAME FIRST? >>> THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? > > Define "chicken". Define "egg". It seems some dinosaurs may have had feathers, to add to the confusion. >> In alt.usage.english, Bullshit Remover wrote: >>>> WHICH CAME FIRST? >>>> THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? >> Define "chicken". Define "egg". > > It seems some dinosaurs may have had feathers, to add to the confusion. Is that why the did it? SignatureMike Page Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email. > >> In alt.usage.english, Bullshit Remover wrote: > >>>> WHICH CAME FIRST? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is that why the did it? It depends on which one was more highly sensitive sexually. Bullshit Remover set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: [ snip many lines leaving only a sample of the ones which uniquely identify this sort of post ] < < < < < < < < < < < If you set your killfiles to recognise and take appropriate action on the sort of line illustrated above you won't go far wrong. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Bullshit Remover set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you set your killfiles to recognise and take appropriate action on the > sort of line illustrated above you won't go far wrong. No sense avoiding the really big questions, Prai. That's where Humanity's quantum leaps in knowledge come from. Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> Bullshit Remover set the following eddies spiralling through the >> space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > No sense avoiding the really big questions, Prai. That's where > Humanity's quantum leaps in knowledge come from. Really big questions we take on. Really silly questions we dismiss. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Really big questions we take on. Really silly questions we dismiss. Well, you need something to do. Lets see your decision pro > > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Lets see your decision pro cedure to distinguish the two, other than your whims. > > > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > > > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > cedure to distinguish the two, other than your whims. And then you have the really big silly questions. You'd both take it on and not take it on. Oooopps! Shades of Hofstadter creeping in. Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > And then you have the really big silly questions. You'd both take it > on and not take it on. Oooopps! Shades of Hofstadter creeping in. The SILLY? meat grinder is applied before the BIG? test. No strange loops or tangled hierarchies, no self-refs or jumping out of the system, everything is programmable in BlooP. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply Prai Jei spouted forth: > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or tangled hierarchies, no self-refs or jumping out of the system, > everything is programmable in BlooP. WTF? Whatever that bollocks means its no good trying it on a troll. He'll just bounce back with more of the same. Signature<unknown> has caused an error in <unknown>. <unknown> will now close. > Prai Jei spouted forth: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > WTF? Whatever that bollocks means its no good trying it on a troll. He'll > just bounce back with more of the same. "ONE MAN'S TROLL IS ANOTHER MAN'S GENERAL SYSTEMS THINKER." Don Stockbauer spouted forth: >> Prai Jei spouted forth: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "ONE MAN'S TROLL IS ANOTHER MAN'S GENERAL SYSTEMS THINKER." See what I mean? Signature<unknown> has caused an error in <unknown>. <unknown> will now close. > Don Stockbauer spouted forth: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > See what I mean? But you're a troll. > > Don Stockbauer spouted forth: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But you're a troll. Is MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) still in effect? > > > Don Stockbauer spouted forth: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Is MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) still in effect? How can we possibly feed the Earth's population if we cant troll for fish? "Give a man a fish and s/he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and s/he eats for a lifetime. Fish. Fish. Day after day, fish. Fish souffle, fish sandwiches , fish hash, fish gumbo. FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [...] > "Give a man a fish and s/he eats for a day. > > Teach a man to fish and s/he eats for a lifetime. Give a man a fire and you keep him warm for a few hours; set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. Sidebar: how can a man be a she? Or maybe I don't want to know . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Quoth Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com>, and I quote: >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Sidebar: how can a man be a she? Or maybe I don't want to know . . . . I know a woman who can perform the necessary operation. She never tires of pointing out that in the future we will have to get used to hearing about women who contract prostate cancer. SignatureJames > Quoth Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tires of pointing out that in the future we will have to get used > to hearing about women who contract prostate cancer. And men who give birth. There is one already! But of course "he" is really still a "she". James Hogg wrote... > Quoth Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com>, and I quote: >>Sidebar: how can a man be a she? Or maybe I don't want to know . >>. . . > > I know a woman who can perform the necessary operation. You mean 'Snip, snip, and Bob's your auntie'? > She never tires of pointing out that in the future we will have to > get used to hearing about women who contract prostate cancer. SignatureNoel >Give a man a fire and you keep him warm for a few hours; set a man on >fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. > >Sidebar: how can a man be a she? Or maybe I don't want to know . . . . If the man is a woman and not a werman, the man is a she. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes filted: >>Give a man a fire and you keep him warm for a few hours; set a man on >>fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. >> >>Sidebar: how can a man be a she? Or maybe I don't want to know . . . . > >If the man is a woman and not a werman, the man is a she. But no man (with one exception: 54 10'N, 04 30'W) is an island....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tangled hierarchies, no self-refs or jumping out of the system, everything > is programmable in BlooP. But strange loops, tangled hierarchies, self-refs and JOOTSing are what give you the really big jumps in advancement. Constructivism is nice for slow, steady progress. Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> > Don Stockbauer set the following eddies spiralling through the >> > space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > cedure to distinguish the two, other than your whims. Common sense they call it. I'm familiar with the < posts from other forums, which *start* from a position which would have us believe that human remains have been found in gigayear-old coal deposits, and waffle on from there. It's what computer people call garbage in garbage out. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply On 27 Jun 2009, Don Stockbauer wrote Unless you've got a different nym, Don, I'm not sure why you left AUE crossposted with this stuff. Mileages invariably vary [1], but I vote for "please count AUE out". [1] I'm not sure if that's an oxymoron, or ironic, or solesistic. Whatever -- works for me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 27 Jun 2009, Don Stockbauer wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > [1] I'm not sure if that's an oxymoron, or ironic, or solesistic. > Whatever -- works for me I overlooked that Mike Page had included youse guys in the post I responded to. (Sentence ends with a proposition). Am very sari. "Ah shore wuz sad that he done hung hisself. He was tha one what larned me gud English" - Rusty, a Texas gentleman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.