this question has most likely been asked before but i must've missed it.
any hoo, just wondering.
as for mine, it shows that i am a good for nothing smurf who loves boobies i guess...
Mine says "safety first - leather suits save you from burns from hot materials"
Midwichcuckoo - yours says to me "look into my eyes, look into my eyes, not around the eyes, into the eyes, and 3, 2, 1, you're under...". When mrs iggy starts giving birth to blond evil children, I'm holding you responsible, cuckoo.
ig.
the following are raw anagrams of 'watchtower bible and tract society': .
crotchety, braw, bawdiest, nice total.. blatant witchery to best cowardice.. win crotchety, battiest, able coward.. crabby cheaters twit twit canoodle.. starchier, wobbly, wanted tic-tac-toe.. crotchety twit brains dateable cow.. crotchety twit cows dateable brain.. celibate drab as now crotchety twit.. it isn't crotchety, braw, dateable cow.. charitable cowboys twit decent rat.. drab cowboy twitters athletic acne.. downbeat celibacy twitters to arch.. celibacy twitters both neat coward.. blast it!
yacht now better cowardice.. wanted, battiest, cool witchery crab.. bother!
Blast It! now erect by that cowardice.
flying over from stansted on tuesday to see springsteen at the point.. anyone going too?.
even if not you could still buy me a beer:-).
(sorry simon - only got the one ticket this time - and its an acoustic tour too...).
I heard that the Arsenal fans were singing "Sold to the U.S.A." to the tune of "Born in the U.S.A" to the ManU fans at the cup final last weekend!
ig.
you have a bow and arrow.
you shoot the arrow with the bow from point a to point b.. but the arrow will never reach point b, it's destination.
before the arrow can reach point b, it must first travel half way (let's call that point c).. but before the arrow can reach point c, it must first travel half way (let's call that point d).. but before the arrow can reach point d, it must first travel half way (let's call that point e).. do you see the problem?
Hi Rod,
My problem with the briefcase lies in the fact that I have to continue to expend energy to keep the briefcase perfectly still. I'm justified in taking the table top as a local zero for my PE because I could have an assistant lift the briefcase up for me and put it in my hand which was already at table height. In that case, I would have done no work lifting the briefcase, but I would have to continue to expend energy in my muscles to keep the briefcase up at table top height. It really does seem to me that I have to continue to expend energy to change the PE not one jot.
I think (from doing a little reading around) that the answer lies in what goes on in muscle cells to produce muscular contraction. There's a chemical reaction involving long chainlike molecules, which in the presence of ATP (it always seems to come down to ATP in the end in biochemistry!) start to move along each other in a pretty amazing way, causing a contraction in the cell and the conversion of ATP to ADP as usual. In the absence of ATP though the cell relaxes back, hence the need for a constant supply of ATP to maintain muscle tension, hence the constant supply of energy required by me to hold the briefcase vertically still.
Looks like muscle cells are a bit like leaky beach balls, needing a constant supply of energy to maintain their inflation.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/muscle4.htm gives a reasonable explanation I think (sorry, not got time to read it in depth at the mo, but it looks ok on first glance)
ig.
I was the invisible woman when I first started posting on JWD. Isn't it sad that sometimes you have to be a pain in the butt to be noticed like some of the trolls here?
LOL at Blondie. It's true. It's the prodigal son isn't it? If you want a big party thrown for you, be an a***hole for a while and then see the light
ig.
i went to a friend's house last night.
i was talking with him about religious issues.
i told him i no longer feel that the witnesses have the truth.
Your friend seems pretty smart to me.
Back in the day, when I used to believe in God, I always believed most strongly in the reasonableness of God. I mean that my mental image of God was like a very sensible, wise, calm and compassionate Grandparent, who also had the ability to understand our motivations and feelings. I could not square this with the idea of a God who would be killing basically good people (like your friend) on the basis that they'd politely declined to speak to some jws who'd called on their door one time or another.
The whole setup seemed so deeply unfair to me. There were good, honest people that I knew who were about to be destroyed at armageddon, and the weren't really being given a chance. Put it another way, if you were God, would you save your friend? Of course you would, and so would I, and I've never even met him. It would be the sensible and reasonable thing to do, because he seems to be an alright kind of chap from what you've said.
Aahh, but what if they're right? In the end I reasoned it out this way...
Is God seriously expecting me to devote my life to a very weakly logically formulated religion, just in case they have the truth? I'm not expressing this very well, but I hope you see what I mean.
To put it another way, if armageddon happens and God says to me "you should have stayed a JW, my son. The whole crappiness of the wt logic, no evidence whatsoever for 607bce etc etc was just a giant test of your faith, and yes I am going to kill a whole load of people just because they shut the door on the jws when they called", then I am going to be extremely pissed of with Him, and justifiably so, in my opinion.
ig
this is fun (from /.);.
note the bit;... quoted a specialist in evolutionary psychology as saying it could be because the children of "systemiser" parents appeared to encounter more testosterone in the womb, making their gender more likely to be male.. .
now, i suspect a quote has been misunderstood.
That's very interesting, if those statistics are for real I think it's pretty suprising. That testosterone in the womb thing is interesting. Yes of course you're right, the sex is determined according to which sperm is successful in getting into the egg first, so what might the original quote from the scientist have been about? What's the real explanation for the statistics?
The only idea that occurs to me at the moment is - given that "male" and "female" sperm are slightly different (male sperm = live fast, die young; female sperm = slow and steady wins the race; I think that's roughly how it goes) then perhaps a bit more testosterone in the womb helps the male sperm get up to the egg better somehow. Not sure how though.
Richie - LOL! Try not to get a woody next time you see your careers advisor Anyway, you should be thinking about your future career at every opportunity.
ig.
ROFLMAO @ El Kabong
You total bastard! You've completely ruined the ending for me
ig
.
well........ i needs to know.............. scoob
I think you should perhaps be made aware, that opinion in some quarters has been curiously devided on the use of the term "hubby", by women when refering to their husbands.
Alas, I missed the sacrifices, so I can't give you any further details on those.
ig.
bladerunner - lots of rain...big coca-cola ad on the side of a building...more rain...punk rocker chick...what is this movie about again?.
finding neverland - blech.
you're sooo pretty johnny.. pulp fiction - hit men discussing what mcdonalds quarter pounders are called in france.
Woo hoo, I thought Moulin Rouge shite as well. I have to pretend to like that film in my own house, otherwise mrs iggy gets peeved with me!
Recently saw the new Hitchikers' Guide to the Galaxy film. First time me and mrs iggy had been out together since the birth of firstborn. Result? The film was poo!
ig.
ps Pulp fiction was great!
