It was nothing.

That's a lie, and you know it. There had to be something, otherwise it would've been, y'know...I dunno, the center of a black hole, which is still something. So don't tell me whatever it was wasn't. It was, and you know it. For it not to have been would be an impossible thing! A thing that's not true or possible. Which could then be nothing.



Gawd, that's circular logic. Circular like a circle. What's inside it? NOTHING.



Think about that one. I DARE YOU :O

Powered by ScribeFire.

And from whence this word came...

The term was brought up to me last night, "oddservations". Observations of the odd. I guess then that the issue left here is what's considered odd.



I'd go to Webster's or some such and post for you the official definition of "odd", but the reference police would come get me. In lieu of that, I'll make it up as I go. I'd suppose being odd means something that's significantly separated from the norm. Unfortunately, talk about a useless definition, now we have to figure out what's a significant separation, and what "the norm" is.



Sounds like it makes obsolete plenty of words, but I wouldn't go that far yet. That'd be like saying "I say that 2 plus 2 is seven, so now math is broke!" Instead we've got to establish some sort of sense. Settle down kids, or I'll turn this car around, I mean it this time! We can't assume that normal can be defined as an average, because that can be skewed by largely outside results; instead, something more like the mode of a sample set would...



Uhm...



Math.



So if I observe the odd, then what? I'm observing either (a) something that doesn't exist, or (b) an opinion. Makes perfect sense!



And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't work for Webster's.

powered by performancing firefox

I suppose that's right.

Here's an interesting phrase.



You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.



So how does this relate to that part where you're halfway through the cake, and pondering the gains of finishing the cake (is it tasty enough? is it too rich?) versus the saving of cake (or perhaps giving it up to a more hungry companion)? It seems that in that mid-point, you can possibly both have, and eat cake.



Isn't there a law in physics that says that two objects cannot occupy the same point in space? Perhaps cake is the portal to dodging this law. Cake can be both had, and eaten, despite the constant belief to the contrary.



Imagine having two objects in the same point. Literally, two atoms co-existing in the same pinpoint in space. It's a thought we as humans have an awfully hard time visualizing, just like impossibly huge numbers (quadrillions, for example -- visualize a quadrillion of something, go ahead). I think the closest I could come to visualizing that idea would be two colors combining into a new one, like red and yellow into orange -- and even then, isn't orange just yellow and red intermixed so much that our eyes can't differentiate? Or have we gotten to the point where we can create orange, without using an intermediate?



This cinches it. Orange cake must be the biggest conundrum in existence. That said, let's see if we can find a bigger one.



Next question?

powered by performancing firefox