(ago) it's an argument, einstein!

it's monday. huzzah, hooray, and stuff.

good afternoon, reeds. it's 12/11, and i'm feeling lazy to the max. but, regardless, i'll try my best at giving you your latest installment of tiny damaged notions!

globeandmail.com recently banged out this news report:
"ugly, but...deep"? that's the same thing they said about english philosopher john locke:
man, look at that sexy outfit, and wig!

but globeandmail.com's article was referring to gross new creatures beneath the antarctic ice.

yum.

you know, researchers have made leaps and bounds this year with discovering new crap that only they care about. for instance, globeandmail.com told of this discovery:

A shrimp believed extinct for 50 million years ago was found on an underwater peak in the Coral Sea near Australia.
(globeandmail.com, "http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061211.wxmarine1211/BNStory/Science/home")

"a shrimp believed extinct for 50 million years ago." now that's good writing!

the word "ago" is so hard not to use (ago) since it's just so damn cool. so ku(ago)dos to you globeandmail.com, who feel no (ago) need in sticking to conventional norms of the english languag(o)e.

perhaps the most interesting thing about this article, aside from the typo, is the comments left on globeandmail.com about the article.

M PETERSON, the fastest fingers in canada, was the first to rip it apart:

'Scientists discover many new species in the inky water under Antarctica'. There is a big difference between (a) the discovery of a species and (b) the discovery of a new species.
(globeandmail.com, "http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061211.wxmarine1211/CommentStory/Science/home#comment515268")

he went on to explain both points (a) and (b) in a fashion that reminded me how boring i am when i go on my own english rants.

the next message-board fanatic was brendan caron from vancouver. he wanted to get past all of this hubub and bad mojo being spread around by M PETERSON:

Semantics aside...[sic] Ever since the submersible, ALVIN. in the late seventies we have realized that life goes on far beneath the realms of man's imaginings[...]Even if we don't survive it is nice to know that life goes on and in a few billion years the planet may be inhabited by human-like species. Hope they do better than we are apparently doing. Trust that God dude to do the right thing. Hear tell He don't gamble...[sic] so Einstein claims/says.
(globeandmail.com, "http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061211.wxmarine1211/CommentStory/Science/home#comment515268")

ok, so that kind of related to the article. that's a start; and i agree, it is nice to know that soon humans will be extinct. why is that? well, because we'll all be in the hands of that bodacious surfer in the sky, "God dude," right brendan? get ready for an eternity of tubular waves, bro!

after that, joe mead from winnipeg wanted to beat M PETERSON at his own game:

Thanks for the English lesson #1. But is it a 'big difference' or just a 'difference' ? What exactly does 'big' mean here? What if it was only a 'little difference'? Or maybe you could also mean a 'tiny difference', in which case this topic is totally irrelevant to the article.
(globeandmail.com, "http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061211.wxmarine1211/CommentStory/Science/home#comment515268")

oooohh, eat that, PETERSON!

although, while you tried, joe, your only point of evidence seems to be entirely fabricated. you made the argument that M PETERSON used "big" when he should have used "little" or "tiny," and then stated that if he did mean "little" or "tiny" then his comment was invalid. you should have supported your claim by showing how the semantic difference M PETERSON spoke about was actually little (or tiny) when taking in the whole article. this way you wouldn't have jumped straight from your argument to winning--alchemy style--and instead would have possibly showed that guy up.

next time.

comment lover #4 decided to arm himself with facts straight from google, and fired some bullets of truth at "surfin' joe" mead. jean-noël roy from montréal, who was voted most l33t h4x0r in all of montréal, claimed that einstein did not believe in the judeo-christian monotheistic God.

::gasp!::

well, now that a debate was on my hands, i went straight towards the source of all truth to answer this: wikipedia.

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Note that Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza was a naturalistic pantheist.
(wikipedia.com, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views")

well, that's the only answer i need. looks like einstein loves pantheism.

why don't you just go off and read walden, einstein!

now there's a sentence i never thought i would get to use.

have a wonderous monday full of surfin' it up, you gnar-tastic reeds! and go argue on some message boards for me.

(ago)