aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Soft Skills this week in the Jobs Discussion forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" Watch "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" New topic
Author

There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
The assertions of his followers are ludicrous, and based on unreasoned premise. Moreover, I find some of his teaching to be morally offensive.

Besides, I don't like Pasta.


Java Regular Expressions
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Max is an antipastist.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

INNODEL!


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Christophe Verré
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 14688
    
  16

Max is an antipastist.

I do like a fresh pastis in summer


[My Blog]
All roads lead to JavaRanch
Henry Wong
author
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 19060
    
  40

I dunno. Personally, I think "Pastafarian" is actually a cool title to have...

Henry


Books: Java Threads, 3rd Edition, Jini in a Nutshell, and Java Gems (contributor)
Paul Clapham
Bartender

Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 18987
    
    8

I figured that tomb business was bunk, scientifically and historically. And scripturally, too, it appears. Not surprising really.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
The assertions of his followers are ludicrous, and based on unreasoned premise. Moreover, I find some of his teaching to be morally offensive.
Ah, but your anti-FSM idea is just a theory and you can't prove it. In fact, the FSM idea is also a theory and I demand that it be taught in science lessons.

While we're at it, I'm pretty sure gravity is just a theory so perhaps spaghetti based alternative theories should also be taught in science lessons. Students should be taught that gravity isn't proven and that all possible other ideas are equally valid. Especially the ones that are related to spaghetti, because... er... well the FSM says so.


There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Ben Souther
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 11, 2004
Posts: 13410

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
Students should be taught that gravity isn't proven and that all possible other ideas are equally valid.


Word!


Java API J2EE API Servlet Spec JSP Spec How to ask a question... Simple Servlet Examples jsonf
Henry Wong
author
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 19060
    
  40

While we're at it, I'm pretty sure gravity is just a theory so perhaps spaghetti based alternative theories should also be taught in science lessons. Students should be taught that gravity isn't proven and that all possible other ideas are equally valid. Especially the ones that are related to spaghetti, because... er... well the FSM says so.


BTW, are there any "intelligent design" friendly school boards still in power? I'm not sure, but I heard that the one in Kansas (the epicenter of this) has mostly been replaced.

Henry
[ March 06, 2007: Message edited by: Henry Wong ]
Don Stadler
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 451
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Max is an antipastist.


That offends me, as I am an anapastis - you are joking about my religion!
Barry Gaunt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 03, 2002
Posts: 7729
Quotes from "Life of Brian", anyone?


Ask a Meaningful Question and HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch
Getting someone to think and try something out is much more useful than just telling them the answer.
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
Ah, but your anti-FSM idea is just a theory and you can't prove it. In fact, the FSM idea is also a theory and I demand that it be taught in science lessons.

No no no, that's where you're wrong. I can prove it, by contradiction. That is, if we assume that the Pasta Deity is valid, and that assumption leads us to an unescapable logical contradiction, then I've proven that the assumption is invalid.

You wanna try me, noodle-lover?


While we're at it, I'm pretty sure gravity is just a theory so perhaps spaghetti based alternative theories should also be taught in science lessons.

You mean, like His Invisible Noodly Appendages are holding us down?
[ March 06, 2007: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Andrew Monkhouse
author and jackaroo
Marshal Commander

Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Posts: 11524
    
100

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
While we're at it, I'm pretty sure gravity is just a theory so perhaps spaghetti based alternative theories should also be taught in science lessons.[/qb]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
You mean, like His Invisible Noodly Appendages are holding us down?
That makes sense. Have you ever noticed how spaghetti sticks to supposedly non-stick dishes, walls, ceilings, ... (is it OK to talk about throwing spaghetti around in this conversation? )

So if spaghetti sticks to everything so well, invisible noodly appendages would be perfect for holding down people.
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by Ben Souther:
...Word!

Thank you!


"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42913
    
  68
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
INNODEL!




I think that was the one emoticon still missing in this thread. Which ties in with Life Of Brian, which has a scene with a whole stadium full of people rolling on the floor laughing, so there you go, Barry :-)
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Max: The assertions of his followers are ludicrous, and based on unreasoned premise.

That's a falacy number 3 "Proof by Opinion as Fact" on The Official JavaRanch Fallacies" list!


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
You wanna try me, noodle-lover?
Heretic!
You mean, like His Invisible Noodly Appendages are holding us down?
It's no more silly then the idea that everything in the universe "magically" attracts everything else for unexplained reasons. In fact I think it is a liberal left wing sandal wearing communist tree-hugging gravitationalist conspiracy to try and hide the truth.

Surely the FSM is right? Someone told me He is, so it must be true.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
I think this thread should be locked down and all participants spanked for discussing religion here, and for offending the almighty himself! May the sauce stain all your shirts!!


[ flickr ]
Henry Wong
author
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 19060
    
  40

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
I think this thread should be locked down and all participants spanked for discussing religion here, and for offending the almighty himself! May the sauce stain all your shirts!!


Ramen to that !!!
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
May the sauce stain all your shirts!!


ROFLOL
Steve Fahlbusch
Bartender

Joined: Sep 18, 2000
Posts: 582
    
    7

Arrrrr!!!
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Max: The assertions of his followers are ludicrous, and based on unreasoned premise.

That's a fallacy number 3 "Proof by Opinion as Fact" on The Official JavaRanch Fallacies" list!


Not So! I can prove my assertion.

The definition of ludicrous is the following amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity


Now, since that definition operators on a or relationship, then I simply need to demonstrate that the belief system is amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity or incongruity or exaggeration.

For the sake of argument, I choose amusing. I postulate the idea of a deity based on pasta is amusing. As my first line of proof, I offer the the following. If this fails to satisfy, I'm well prepared to offer more evidence.

So, were you amused?
[ March 08, 2007: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Max]: Now, since that definition operators on a or relationship, then I simply need to demonstrate that the belief system is amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity or incongruity or exaggeration.

You've inserted an extra "or" not present in the original definition. The sentence simply doesn't parse the way you've just shown it. Unfortunately the original is ambiguous; I see two possibilities that would make sense, shown here with braces to clarify the (possible) order of operations:

1. [amusing] or [laughable through [obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity]]

2. [amusing or laughable] through [obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity]

Presumably you would favor interpretation 1, which sets an extraordinarily low bar for what constitutes "ludicrous". I don't believe you'll find many others who would agree with ths interpretation. The second interpretation makes much more sense to me.

Aside from that, you've also forgotten the "and" from your original statement. Your "proof" remains incomplete.
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Besides, using Merriam-Webster as a foundation seems a bit dubious.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What about definition number 2: "meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish"?

You just offended this guy's religious feelings.

I am not amused.
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by marc weber:
Besides, using Merriam-Webster as a foundation seems a bit dubious.


Pfft.

Jim, you'll need to explain why using MW seems dubious(to you), and you'll need to review your understanding of the syntax of your second option above.

To be specific, you'd need a comma after the second sentence(after the bracket) to get interpertation your hoping for.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Max]: Jim, you'll need to explain why using MW seems dubious(to you)

No, because

1. Perhaps you meant that to sound like a request?
2. It's not as if you've addressed any of the problems cited in your own last post
3. I'm not Marc.

[Max]: and you'll need to review your understanding of the syntax of your second option above.

I've done so. Still makes perfect sense to me. Certainly much better than allowing "ludicrous" to simply be a synonym for (or superset of) "amusing".

[Max]: To be specific, you'd need a comma after the second sentence(after the bracket) to get interpertation your hoping for.

I see no sentence there, and many brackets. Can you be more specific? Maybe just showing where you think a comma is needed?
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Max]: Jim, you'll need to explain why using MW seems dubious( to you)

No, because

1. Perhaps you meant that to sound like a request?

No, I meant for it to sound like a logical imperative.

2. It's not as if you've addressed any of the problems cited in your own last post
Can you be more specific? Maybe just showing where you think the problems are?


3. I'm not Marc.


So you say: but I've grown suspicious of you two for a while now: I notice that you're never in the same room at the same time....

[b][Max]: and you'll need to review your understanding of the syntax of your second option above.

I've done so. Still makes perfect sense to me.



And that would be sufficient, if we were talking about my interpretation of your opinion: but we're actually talking about the text of MW definition, and how it should be parsed. The issue under contention right now is not the correctness of the defination, but the parsing of it. Once we get the parsing down, then we can discuss it's correctness.
[ March 09, 2007: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Max: The issue under contention right now is not the correctness of the defination, but the parsing of it. Once we get the parsing down, then we can discuss it's correctness.

How can we decide which parsing is true? I don't think there is any definite criteria, which means we have to reach a consensus. This is what I believe Jim was saying, "Still makes perfect sense to me. Certainly much better than allowing "ludicrous" to simply be a synonym for (or superset of) "amusing". I agree with him that we should accept the interpretation number 2. You apparently disagree:

To be specific, you'd need a comma after the second sentence(after the bracket) to get interpertation your hoping for.

You mean

2. amusing or laughable, through [obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity] ?

Can you tell which rule of punctuation you think requires a comma here?

P.S. In your "then we can discuss it's correctness" "it's correctness" should be " its correctness", of course.
[ March 10, 2007: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
...P.S. In your "then we can discuss it's correctness" "it's correctness" should be " its correctness", of course. ...

Thank you, that's one of my pet peeves. (Another is using "i.e." in place of "e.g.")

But now you've raised the troublesome question of punctuation within the closing quotation mark or outside the closing quotation mark:
  • ..."its correctness", of course. Or
  • ..."its correctness," of course.

  • [ March 10, 2007: Message edited by: marc weber ]
    Mapraputa Is
    Leverager of our synergies
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 26, 2000
    Posts: 10065
    marc: Thank you, that's one of my pet peeves.

    I couldn't understand why "it's" vs. "its" usage can be confusing, until I read in David Crystal's The Fight for English. How language pundits ate, shot, and left about the rule "use an apostrophe to indicate possessive case or an omitted letter". Therefore the possessive form of "it" is what? Right: "it's".

    (Another is using "i.e." in place of "e.g.")

    I still confuse the two .

    But now you've raised the troublesome question of punctuation within the closing quotation mark or outside the closing quotation mark:
    * ..."its correctness", of course. Or
    * ..."its correctness," of course.


    Why, " 'its correctness,' of course." of course. the other variant is American and illogical.
    Andrew Monkhouse
    author and jackaroo
    Marshal Commander

    Joined: Mar 28, 2003
    Posts: 11524
        
    100

    The comma has to be outside the quotes, i.e. '"Its correctness", of course'

    Map was quoting Max, who did not have a comma in his statement, so she would not be quoting his (non-existent) comma. The comma goes into her text, just after the quoted text.

    Map's original usage was correct. Her later attempt was incorrect.

    But feel free to ignore everything I say, since I speak Strine
    marc weber
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 11343

    According to my handy reference Essentials of English Grammar (2nd ed.) by L. Sue Baugh (p. 41)...
    Commas and periods are always placed inside the closing quote marks even if the quoted material is contained within the sentence...

    You've read the poem "Ash Wednesday," haven't you?

    As Map pointed out, this "variant is American and illogical." My understanding is that the British approach is to place commas and periods outside the closing quote marks. I have to agree that seems more logical (particularly considering the additional rules cited below); but being American, I place my commas and periods within the closing quote mark.

    For the sake of completeness (and added confusion on American variations)...
    Semicolons and colons are always placed outside the the quotation marks.

    Look up the title under "Animated Cartoons"; copy the cartoon features listed there.

    ...

    Question marks and exclamation points are placed inside the final quotation mark if they are part of the quoted material. Otherwise they are placed outside the quotation marks. Only one end mark is used at the end of a sentence containing quoted material.

    Have you read the report "Single-Parent Families"? (The entire sentence is the question; the end mark comes after the final quotation mark.)
    He sent Josh the article "Why Can't Ivan Compute?" (The title is a question and the end mark comes before the final quotation marks.)
    Mapraputa Is
    Leverager of our synergies
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 26, 2000
    Posts: 10065
    Disclamer: this was written before I saw marc's post.

    Andrew: Map's original usage was correct. Her later attempt was incorrect.

    You are right! I was so concerned with American vs. anti-American usage, that was distracted with double vs. single quote marks.

    Anyway, the rule is:

    The traditional convention in American English is for commas and periods to be included inside the quotation marks, even if they are not part of the quoted sentence, while the British (and Russian -- M.I.) style shows clearly whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation
    [ March 10, 2007: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
    marc weber
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 11343

    e.g. - abbr. for example.
    --ORIGIN from Latin exempli gratia 'for the sake of an example.'

    i.e. - abbr. that is to say (used to add explanatory information or to state something in different words): a walking boot that is synthetic, i.e., not leather or suede.
    --ORIGIN from Latin id est 'that is.'

    Ref: The New Oxford American Dictionary

    In Oxford's examples, note the placement of periods within the closing quote marks, and the comma following "i.e."
    [ March 10, 2007: Message edited by: marc weber ]
    Max Habibi
    town drunk
    ( and author)
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jun 27, 2002
    Posts: 4118
    I Dunno, using Merriam-Webster Oxford as a foundation seems a bit dubious.

    marc weber
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 11343

    While I'm on the topic (which is increasingly off the topic), I'll also mention the hyphenation of compound adjectives...
    When compound adjectives are used before the noun, they are hyphenated. When they follow the noun, no hyphen is used. If one of the modifiers is an adverb ending in -ly, do not use a hyphen in the compound adjective.

    a decision-making process ... a process for decision making

    Ref: p.45 of the grammar guide I referenced above.
    Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    The idea that a trailing comma should be included within quotations even when not actually part of the quoted text... is perhaps the stupidest grammar rule that I have ever heard of. The fact that it's taught in American schools makes me ashamed to be an American. Well, not that ashamed... I simply assume the people who wrote that rule were morons, and ignore it. As should everyone else, since it's clearly, completely and utterly, wrong. Most differences between UK English and US English are easily ascribed to the fact that the "English" language was not yet standardized (or standardised) at the time of the split. No problem. Usually both variants make sense. But the idea that quotes should include punctuation not part of the quoted material is wrong. Very clearly wrong. I don't care what your teachers may have told you - how can anyone with a mind of their own rationalize such a gross abuse of logic? Quotes should contain the literal text that you're quoting. Anything else is a lie. That's my take, anyway.
    marc weber
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 11343

    Originally posted by Max Habibi:
    I Dunno, using Merriam-Webster Oxford as a foundation seems a bit dubious.


    Can I change my JavaRanch title to "dictionary snob and bartender"?
    marc weber
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 31, 2004
    Posts: 11343

    Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
    The idea that a trailing comma should be included within quotations even when not actually part of the quoted text... is perhaps the stupidest grammar rule that I have ever heard of...

    I'm inclined to agree, but knowing what the rule is, I can't quite bring myself to break it.

    Oh, wait... I do break this rule when quoting Java code, to avoid any confusion about the punctuation being part of the code.
    [ March 10, 2007: Message edited by: marc weber ]
     
    permaculture playing cards
     
    subject: There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster