Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Ancestors Vs. Descendents; Jelly Vs. Cream, and Other Stuff

I have recently gotten two comments I would like to respond to.

One is from Just D
This is a comment on one of my earlier posts: My Humble Beginnings
He says:
"Not to be picky here, but unless you were DaVinci's grandfather (which would cause an extreme paradigm, at which point most of us lesser being's heads would explode), he should have signed it to his greatest descendant, not ancestor.

Or something like that."

The other is from The CEO
This is a comment on the immediately previous post.
The CEO Says:
"While I tend to believe you on jelly filled, I have doubts about creme filled and honey dipped. When can I expect your work to cover these donuts?"

I will answer The CEO first.

*Ahem* While it may be hard for you to follow, the previous post can be used to prove the existence of anything by the substitution property of completely complex things.

I'll demonstrate.

For the three simple explanations, just substitute the item of your choice for "Jelly Donut". Now, as long as the statements hold true for that item, it is proved that it exist. For example, with brief proof 1:

Proof 1: I said it so you'd better believe it.

"It" Stands for "Jelly Donuts Exist". Substitute "Cream Filled Donuts Exist" and you have a proof(if I've said that, which I say here). You can do this for brief proofs 2 and 3 as well. Just substitute your item for "Jelly Filled Donuts", and as long as the statements hold, the substituted items exist.

For the longer proof, you would have to have a nose hair covered in the substance to deduce the existence of an item. There is another way, which is to basically denying the existence of everything and then denying the denial of everything, therefore, all things must exist.

Now To Answer Just D

Alright, you say that the painting should be signed to "My greatest descendant Dave, not ancestor, unless there was a lot of time travel involved. First let me reassure you that I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to make up some stupid thing about how I traveled back in time and blah, blah, blah. This isn't Star Trek(although I HAVE figured out the answer to breaking the speed of light).

My first thought was, "Well, everyone makes mistakes, I mean, just cause it's Da vinci doesn't mean he didn't get brain blips sometimes."

Then I got to thinking and I figured there should be some other explanation. Well, I have exhaustively researched the problem, and I think I have found the answer.

If you recall Da Vinci was Italian. Now, if you look at the painting below it's in English(you might see where I'm going). If he was Italian, why did he write the below in English. Well, obviously he knew that I would be English(though I have mastered 50 other languages besides English, including Klingon and Romulan, I have not yet taken it upon myself to learn Italian). Da Vinci foresaw this, and wrote the text in English for my ease(he was a nice guy). Well, you know how it's said English is the hardest language to learn. Plus, who knows what the English was like then, what with thee and thou and all the 'eths they puteth on the end of everything) He made a small mistake. You can't exactly sue him(especially since he's dead).

I hope that you are pleased with my responses. I now need to go and finish my 1,000,000,000,000 page paper on the effects of a butterfly flapping its wings.

With Utter Disregard


Just D said...

Good choice, to go with the lack of clear english skills. I have that problem at times myself. ;-)

Dave said...

I don't understand your implication that I just made this up on the spot. I couldn't "go with" something. I have to go with the truth.