Showing posts with label fencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fencing. Show all posts

Thursday, December 4, 2008

A Brief Post in Which Elliot Weighs in on Something Tangentially Related to (American) Football

I like funny shirts.
I have an aesthetic to my funny (tee) shirts and it is simply this:
There is limited space on a tee shirt to use before clutter, entropy if you prefer, occurs.
As such, line drawings are better than photo realistic pictures and silhouettes are better than line drawings.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but words still tell the joke.
The picture presents the conflict.

So I am waiting for a new shirt, most likely in red, white, blue. It will have, from left to right, a graphic of track pants, a inequation sign, and a graphic of a holster. I don't know what text if any is necessary to clarify.
Maybe both of these graphic will be shown in relation to a man with a gun, but I think the essence of the joke lies in track pants, gun holster non-identity.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Understatement of the Week.














courtesy of xkcd.com. (where "courtesy of" means "copied and pasted from.")

Thursday, August 14, 2008

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,'—that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

In class exercise: 30 words or less. Define the word "Skeptic." Just your working, go-to, this-is-how-I-use-this-word definition of "skeptic." 5 minutes.
1
2
3
4

5.


Okay. Fingers away from keyboards. No one googled a definition? What'd you come up with?







I have "someone who is critical of a/some subject/subjects. A detective. A scientist."


Don't worry, my definition is wrong.


OED has four definitions. They're really long-winded but:
1. someone who, like pyrrho, doubts the possibility of real knowledge, and subsequent claims to such
2. A critic, either in a specific field or in general.
3. someone who doubts the possibility of knowledge in the supernatural, specifically Christian supernaturalism.
4.someone who has yet to reach a conclusion, but remains a seeker of, and believer in, truth.

Is it possible then, that skeptic means nothing? I mean, it seems like 4. is opposed to 1. Maybe it just means whatever we think it means.
And yet, Logic was made by 4's to prevent 1's from wasting away worrying about what would happen if they were found out for 3's. And yet, 4's depend on "skeptic" meaning 1. and not 2,3, or 4.

And that smells.