i keep getting caught up in the little things while i'm working. what is the best possible variable name, what name will be easy to guess in the future when i need to remember it and i don't want to scroll around looking, what name will make whoever reads this code understand exactly what the variable is used for just by seeing the variable name and no context.
bash scripting is very promising. but i am new at it. right now it probably makes me spend more time than i normally would to get a task done. i converted all the jpg files from some test runs into ppm files. that was easy enough. now i'm trying to have it work with my ppm analyzing program written in c.
i spent a lot of time not knowing why it does not work. i have narrowed down the problem quite a bit though. right now i'm fairly certain the problem is that the original jpgs have errors, so the converted ppms have errors, and my code assumes that the ppms will have no errors. but i spent a lot of time thinking it was the bash script and that something was wrong with it. eventually i found that there was a typo. a typo had me frustrated for literally hours. in that time i learned a better way to do a directory listing.
i just remembered i need to get to campus. bye.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
beach study room door is closed
the beach conference room door is closed. that's where i've been studying if i can for the last few days. today i'll have to find a different room. for now, i've found a power outlet outside the room. i can hear the ocean quite well. it's relaxing. i can also see a way to climb on to a platform. an extension cord would be useful right now. there's some tables to my right with a view around the corner to the ocean, but i can't sit there and be plugged in at the same time. still, the sound of the ocean reaches me. the extension cord would help if i climbed up on that platform. i'd want to do the climbing part as little as possible. less chance of getting caught. there are some offices that might have a view of the platform, which would also make it a bad place to study. break is a good time to investigate.
as far as i have investigated, there are no open rooms. the only rooftops to get to are visible from too many places. it's possible that from them i'd be able to get to a hidden area, but i'm not willing to take the risk right now. later.
as far as i have investigated, there are no open rooms. the only rooftops to get to are visible from too many places. it's possible that from them i'd be able to get to a hidden area, but i'm not willing to take the risk right now. later.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
VAR parameters in oberon
VAR parameters are like pointers.
i'm thinking i'll just always send the pointer, and then if it's not a VAR, i'll copy the contents pointed to by that address to that parameter. that way i don't have to know at the time of the function call if a parameter is a VAR or not. but then again, back in the calling area, i should have the ProcSTO of the procedure/function being called.
that seems a little better. like all the stuff required for setting up the call of the function and getting it function the right arguments is done in the calling frame, and nothing is left over to the callee. that separates concerns better. i think i'll do that. then when i'm in the callee procedure, i know which params are supposed to be VARs and i will treat them accordingly. i will probably have to change the load(STO src, Register dest); function a little.
i have a habit of hitting (ctrl+s) now because i've been using eclipse and i want to avoid the annoying "HEY, YOU WANNA SAVE?!" dialog. it's not that bad in any particular instance. it just grinds on you after a while. ALL RIGHT.
i'm hungry. i want to go get food, but if i do, i won't be able to get back into this awesome coding spot. i'm in a conference room in Scripps.
earlier today while i was coding, some graduate students came in. they have a weekly gathering for eating cookies and drinking tea. right now as i type i'm looking out the window at a sunset. there are painted clouds in the sky with easy blue, pink, and gray. birds fly across but i can't watch as they pass the sun. the sky doesn't move much. i know it's changing because it's darker than it was five minutes ago, but i can't identify anything immediately. the ocean is moving a lot. waves crashing. surfers still out there. people have been surfing all day.
why do i get this? what have i done to deserve it? palm trees, evergreen, ocean, clouds, sky, sunset, i'm hungry and there's food nearby that i know i can get, birds, laptop, birds, quiet place to study. i'm coming here again. wireless, large table, many chairs.
and now the sun is further down. i must bring my webcam next time to share this with everyone. i'm watching the sunset through a tree. how cool is that!?
back to coding. i wish there was some way i could mark the changes i do right now and after the quarter is over have those changes linked to from here. that way i could come back later and see what kind of code i write, and i wouldn't have to worry about academic integrity.
i'm thinking i'll just always send the pointer, and then if it's not a VAR, i'll copy the contents pointed to by that address to that parameter. that way i don't have to know at the time of the function call if a parameter is a VAR or not. but then again, back in the calling area, i should have the ProcSTO of the procedure/function being called.
that seems a little better. like all the stuff required for setting up the call of the function and getting it function the right arguments is done in the calling frame, and nothing is left over to the callee. that separates concerns better. i think i'll do that. then when i'm in the callee procedure, i know which params are supposed to be VARs and i will treat them accordingly. i will probably have to change the load(STO src, Register dest); function a little.
i have a habit of hitting (ctrl+s) now because i've been using eclipse and i want to avoid the annoying "HEY, YOU WANNA SAVE?!" dialog. it's not that bad in any particular instance. it just grinds on you after a while. ALL RIGHT.
i'm hungry. i want to go get food, but if i do, i won't be able to get back into this awesome coding spot. i'm in a conference room in Scripps.
earlier today while i was coding, some graduate students came in. they have a weekly gathering for eating cookies and drinking tea. right now as i type i'm looking out the window at a sunset. there are painted clouds in the sky with easy blue, pink, and gray. birds fly across but i can't watch as they pass the sun. the sky doesn't move much. i know it's changing because it's darker than it was five minutes ago, but i can't identify anything immediately. the ocean is moving a lot. waves crashing. surfers still out there. people have been surfing all day.
why do i get this? what have i done to deserve it? palm trees, evergreen, ocean, clouds, sky, sunset, i'm hungry and there's food nearby that i know i can get, birds, laptop, birds, quiet place to study. i'm coming here again. wireless, large table, many chairs.
and now the sun is further down. i must bring my webcam next time to share this with everyone. i'm watching the sunset through a tree. how cool is that!?
back to coding. i wish there was some way i could mark the changes i do right now and after the quarter is over have those changes linked to from here. that way i could come back later and see what kind of code i write, and i wouldn't have to worry about academic integrity.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
i have decided to expel dexter from the entire perfect school system
but mr. kirk, dexter is in school.
i'm afraid he's not, mrs. fischbourne
mad coding style now. i have been simply writing and writing. the more i write the more stuff starts working. stuff breaks, stuff stumps me for a bit, but writing more leads to more functionality. it's not pretty, it's not optimized or generic, but i no longer care. i just want to get the assignment done and spend time with friends. i want to spend time writing code that i find interesting. i can write about this compilers project on my resume, but they aren't going to see the code ever.
resume, interview, DECaF. IBM never got back to me. guess they don't like my resume, or they will get back later. i need to get my transcript from de anza into the office at UCSD. i should find out from serge what kind of classes are heavy on the maths. i need to take math 20E.
how can i be so lucky? the most fortunate thing is that i realize how lucky i am. i think that's better by far than simply having a good life. realizing how good it is, that's key.
ryan and i talked some more about god. i don't know how he can believe so strongly in god without having put thought into some of the questions i asked. he's not me, that's for sure. i asked him if it was immoral not to believe in god. he said he'd have to get back to me. that was understandable, that's not a question i have had for long. i asked him what parts of me was god directly responsible for, because he said that yes god created me, but humans also have free will. there's a lot more to the conversation than what i've written so far. this is just a memory dump. i still need to email that guy from large group with these questions.
start over with the ryan episode:
i recounted a joke i'd heard recently: "god made me an atheist, who are you to question his wisdom?". i think it's a fair question, but ryan's response surprised me. apparently being an atheist is a choice in his opinion(when i say "atheist", i mean someone who doesn't believe in god and not 'someone who believes in the lack of god or gods'. ryan knows what i mean when i say "atheist"). i believe he is totally wrong. i explained that i am simply not convinced by any argument, evidence or experience of any kind that god exists. he questioned the meaning of "convinced". i didn't really have a good definition with which to respond. but in a similar vein: i don't decide what songs i like. i can't say right now "i decide that i will like the next song that comes on the radio." and have it be true. that just doesn't make sense. at the time i didn't give this analogy at the time, but i did explain that i felt that belief in god is not a choice, that it is outside the realm of choosing.
though if it is a choice, that makes the question "is it immoral not to believe in god" more interesting. i asked the question because i get the feeling that most religious people would say "yes", but i don't really know why. from my point of view before talking with ryan, it was perplexing to think that someone could be condemned to hell simply for not proclaiming the right religion, or some low level of heaven for proclaiming a near relative of the right religion. heaven and hell. weird.
pink floyd is very awesome for listening pleasure. i enjoy their music in a way that's hard to express in words. i can't choose to feel this way. i'm glad i can and do, but it's not a choice. if it were, i'd choose it more often. if i could choose to believe in god, i would. the downside would be that i'd have to ... i'm not sure what would be different, actually. certainly it depends on which god i chose to believe in. for the sake of following this train of thought, let's just say i go with the christian god that most of my religious friends believe in. the differences: i'd go to large group more often. i'd get different stuff out of it. i'd probably do religious stuff on sundays more often, like going to church. i could bond with religious friends in more ways, because we'd be able to relate more closely on religious issues. family gatherings would no longer have the uncomfortable religious times, instead they would just be religious times, probably comforting religious times. prayer before meals would not be awkward. maybe i'd try to show people how awesome god is. i would probably read the bible more.
how could i be happy in heaven when i know that people i know are in hell, or will be when they die? sure i didn't personally send them there, but i know those people, i know they are human just like me. they have feelings, thoughts, live and breath. how can i ignore that? is heaven like a drug that makes me forget about bad things? surely it's something other than that because that sounds pretty bad in itself.
and now i've cut a bit too far into my sleeping time. goodnight.
i'm afraid he's not, mrs. fischbourne
mad coding style now. i have been simply writing and writing. the more i write the more stuff starts working. stuff breaks, stuff stumps me for a bit, but writing more leads to more functionality. it's not pretty, it's not optimized or generic, but i no longer care. i just want to get the assignment done and spend time with friends. i want to spend time writing code that i find interesting. i can write about this compilers project on my resume, but they aren't going to see the code ever.
resume, interview, DECaF. IBM never got back to me. guess they don't like my resume, or they will get back later. i need to get my transcript from de anza into the office at UCSD. i should find out from serge what kind of classes are heavy on the maths. i need to take math 20E.
how can i be so lucky? the most fortunate thing is that i realize how lucky i am. i think that's better by far than simply having a good life. realizing how good it is, that's key.
ryan and i talked some more about god. i don't know how he can believe so strongly in god without having put thought into some of the questions i asked. he's not me, that's for sure. i asked him if it was immoral not to believe in god. he said he'd have to get back to me. that was understandable, that's not a question i have had for long. i asked him what parts of me was god directly responsible for, because he said that yes god created me, but humans also have free will. there's a lot more to the conversation than what i've written so far. this is just a memory dump. i still need to email that guy from large group with these questions.
start over with the ryan episode:
i recounted a joke i'd heard recently: "god made me an atheist, who are you to question his wisdom?". i think it's a fair question, but ryan's response surprised me. apparently being an atheist is a choice in his opinion(when i say "atheist", i mean someone who doesn't believe in god and not 'someone who believes in the lack of god or gods'. ryan knows what i mean when i say "atheist"). i believe he is totally wrong. i explained that i am simply not convinced by any argument, evidence or experience of any kind that god exists. he questioned the meaning of "convinced". i didn't really have a good definition with which to respond. but in a similar vein: i don't decide what songs i like. i can't say right now "i decide that i will like the next song that comes on the radio." and have it be true. that just doesn't make sense. at the time i didn't give this analogy at the time, but i did explain that i felt that belief in god is not a choice, that it is outside the realm of choosing.
though if it is a choice, that makes the question "is it immoral not to believe in god" more interesting. i asked the question because i get the feeling that most religious people would say "yes", but i don't really know why. from my point of view before talking with ryan, it was perplexing to think that someone could be condemned to hell simply for not proclaiming the right religion, or some low level of heaven for proclaiming a near relative of the right religion. heaven and hell. weird.
pink floyd is very awesome for listening pleasure. i enjoy their music in a way that's hard to express in words. i can't choose to feel this way. i'm glad i can and do, but it's not a choice. if it were, i'd choose it more often. if i could choose to believe in god, i would. the downside would be that i'd have to ... i'm not sure what would be different, actually. certainly it depends on which god i chose to believe in. for the sake of following this train of thought, let's just say i go with the christian god that most of my religious friends believe in. the differences: i'd go to large group more often. i'd get different stuff out of it. i'd probably do religious stuff on sundays more often, like going to church. i could bond with religious friends in more ways, because we'd be able to relate more closely on religious issues. family gatherings would no longer have the uncomfortable religious times, instead they would just be religious times, probably comforting religious times. prayer before meals would not be awkward. maybe i'd try to show people how awesome god is. i would probably read the bible more.
how could i be happy in heaven when i know that people i know are in hell, or will be when they die? sure i didn't personally send them there, but i know those people, i know they are human just like me. they have feelings, thoughts, live and breath. how can i ignore that? is heaven like a drug that makes me forget about bad things? surely it's something other than that because that sounds pretty bad in itself.
and now i've cut a bit too far into my sleeping time. goodnight.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
met with mormons today
in retrospect, i wanted to talk to the mormons because they approached me on the street. i figured anyone who is willing to go out and preach their message to other people must have really compelling thoughts on the questions i've been having. i have been disappointed.
today i talked to 3 mormons at my place from 2 until 3:45ish when ryan came over. when they first entered, they saw the sign to take off their shoes and asked if i wanted them to take off their shoes. that reminded me that i still had on mine. i took off my own and started to tell them that since they were just visiting it wasn't necessary. one of them, the swedish one, whom i shall call "Swede", started saying it was a good idea to have that policy. the other two i shall call "Notag" for lack of that tag that identifies you as a member of the church of LDS (which is almost LSD), and "Curly" for the curly hair.
when they sat down i offered drinks, but they declined. then they asked me if they could start off with a prayer. i said sure they could pray, i don't mind, but i also don't believe in it. i didn't know if that was ok with them, for me to be praying even though i don't believe in the prayer. they said it was ok, though i still feel weird about that. then they said because i am the man of the house that i could choose who would say the prayer. that was very strange. i said that i didn't care who led the prayer. i think Swede did.
one of the first questions was "why does Notag have a no name tag, while Swede and Curly do?". the reason was that Swede and Curly were missionaries. They decided to go for 18 months (some amount of time, forget the exact amount) and preach their word. Swede and Curly were very enthusiastic. i commented on that. they responded that they were very happy and excited to share their message with me.
Swede did most of the talking for the three of them. she said that god was like a family, a father. i asked her what specific experience she has had with god like that. she talked about how her father had converted to mormonism when he was about 20. that experience wasn't hers, but it was rather specific. she was "brought up in the church".
they asked me about what god i would believe in. if there were a god, what would be some key characteristics. this struck me. i had never considered making up a god on my own. when i think about god, i think about the god presented to me by other people. i said that and started to think of what characteristics i think are necessary for me to believe in a god. all the standard "omni-*" descriptors came to mind. i think i fell flat on that question. i added that i wanted something that i could verify independently. then i paraphrased that famous guy and said that when i get to the pearly gates, and they ask me why i didn't believe, i'd say there was too little evidence. it's impossible for me to distinguish whether this is all made up or real.
following up that question, i asked what could happen that would make them say "you know what, i was wrong. mormonism is a mistake."? Swede jumped in saying that this was a really great question. they all thought it was a good question. they didn't really have an answer for it at the time. they answered, but nothing they said made an impression on me. they've probably forgotten what they said by now. it was clear that this was not a question they had considered and answered before.
i asked them for some sort of proof that what they were saying was fact. they responded that i should pray about it and read the bible. right there, i had two more points to talk about. 1 prayer without faith, 2 the bible has many translations and is only one of many holy books.
prayer: they had asked me to pray before they came in preparation of this meeting. i prayed, but it felt almost disrespectful. i asked them if it's ok to pray even if you don't believe in it, and is it really prayer at that point? Notag had the most interesting thing to say in response to that. she said that it was clear that i was earnest in my efforts and that no one would take offense to it, least of all god.
holy books: Swede and Curly said that i would need to read the book of mormon and the bible in order to fully answer my questions. this is how i feel about that: i don't currently believe in the bible or book of mormon as literal truth. they are just books as far as i'm concerned, not revelations from god. therefore if i find myself reading them and convinced thoroughly, i would have to believe that the same could be true of other books as well. maybe the other books would be even more convincing. unfortunately, people spend their entire lives on a single book and single translation. there seems to be so much information to sift through that it's more than i can do before i die, the ultimate deadline for any job. (apparently mormons will baptize someone by proxy even after death, but that wasn't brought up just then). my dilemma with reading the book of mormon or any religious book is that i want to be thorough about it. i have friends who believe and have told me the same thing about the quran (spelling?) and the bhagavad gita. they said that there's only one translation of the book of mormon done by the 14 year old joseph smith in the 1600s from hieroglyphics written on gold tablets, uncovered here in america after being written in 600 b.c. that cuts down the work a little. Swede said that the mormons believe that the king james version was closest to the real bible. truth was like a glass table that was held up by legs. the legs were ... something, i kinda zoned out. jesus? anyway, they were taken away when jesus was on the cross and the table fell and shattered and pieces of the truth went everywhere. then people found little pieces of the truth and clung to them, thinking that what they had found was the entire truth. i didn't get the chance to ask her what made her think that she wasn't doing the same thing, it seemed to dawn on her as she was talking. then she started explaining why she believed mormonism wasn't like that. her reason was that she felt it. she knew inside that it was correct because she had read the books and prayed and she was convinced.
Notag could see that my questions were not being answered. she even acknowledged it out loud. i was quite impressed by the admission. she said that she had been asking the same questions and that she had found her answer through prayer.
i asked why jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. my understanding is that god needed jesus to die on the cross for us in order to restore a relationship with us. the closest thing i can think of to relate with that is this. as a child playing with toys, i might have my toy broken by someone, and i would want to break their toy in response. in that scenario, i'd be god, and breaking the other person's toy is analogous to jesus dying on the cross. this is not a good comparison, i know. it's still the best one i've heard. i have heard that this is just not something we can understand, and that god is so otherworldly that it makes sense in a way beyond our comprehension. Notag tried to answer, but the answer started to get long. i think she drifted a bit. i remember thinking "how is this going to tie back to jesus dying on the cross?"
i also asked if it was my fault if i go my whole life not believing. can i go on asking and pursuing for my entire life and never come to the conclusion that god is real, but still be worthy of heaven? is it really my decision to believe in god? how can i be held responsible when there is nothing in my experience that can lead me to distinguish mormonism (or any religion) being real versus being made up? i believe the main answer was that if i keep asking questions like i am, and seeking answers, that i will have an answer for myself before i die. i have a suspicion that if i manage to continue asking questions and still have no answer by the time i die, i shall be accused of not trying hard enough, not wanting an answer.
at some point these deep questions felt a little exhausted. i asked them if they had seen the show "South Park". Curly and Swede had heard of it, Notag had a cousin who likes the show. i told them of the scene where hell is doing the orientation for the day and some minion explains to the crowd that they are in fact in hell, damned for all eternity, yadda yadda. someone calls out, says that they were devoutly catholic, another says they were an orthodox jew, and others protest as well. to each, the minion responds "no, i'm sorry, catholics was the wrong answer" and finally the minion says "i'm sorry. mormons. mormons is the correct answer.". the mormons thought that was funny. they had a sense of humor.
today i talked to 3 mormons at my place from 2 until 3:45ish when ryan came over. when they first entered, they saw the sign to take off their shoes and asked if i wanted them to take off their shoes. that reminded me that i still had on mine. i took off my own and started to tell them that since they were just visiting it wasn't necessary. one of them, the swedish one, whom i shall call "Swede", started saying it was a good idea to have that policy. the other two i shall call "Notag" for lack of that tag that identifies you as a member of the church of LDS (which is almost LSD), and "Curly" for the curly hair.
when they sat down i offered drinks, but they declined. then they asked me if they could start off with a prayer. i said sure they could pray, i don't mind, but i also don't believe in it. i didn't know if that was ok with them, for me to be praying even though i don't believe in the prayer. they said it was ok, though i still feel weird about that. then they said because i am the man of the house that i could choose who would say the prayer. that was very strange. i said that i didn't care who led the prayer. i think Swede did.
one of the first questions was "why does Notag have a no name tag, while Swede and Curly do?". the reason was that Swede and Curly were missionaries. They decided to go for 18 months (some amount of time, forget the exact amount) and preach their word. Swede and Curly were very enthusiastic. i commented on that. they responded that they were very happy and excited to share their message with me.
Swede did most of the talking for the three of them. she said that god was like a family, a father. i asked her what specific experience she has had with god like that. she talked about how her father had converted to mormonism when he was about 20. that experience wasn't hers, but it was rather specific. she was "brought up in the church".
they asked me about what god i would believe in. if there were a god, what would be some key characteristics. this struck me. i had never considered making up a god on my own. when i think about god, i think about the god presented to me by other people. i said that and started to think of what characteristics i think are necessary for me to believe in a god. all the standard "omni-*" descriptors came to mind. i think i fell flat on that question. i added that i wanted something that i could verify independently. then i paraphrased that famous guy and said that when i get to the pearly gates, and they ask me why i didn't believe, i'd say there was too little evidence. it's impossible for me to distinguish whether this is all made up or real.
following up that question, i asked what could happen that would make them say "you know what, i was wrong. mormonism is a mistake."? Swede jumped in saying that this was a really great question. they all thought it was a good question. they didn't really have an answer for it at the time. they answered, but nothing they said made an impression on me. they've probably forgotten what they said by now. it was clear that this was not a question they had considered and answered before.
i asked them for some sort of proof that what they were saying was fact. they responded that i should pray about it and read the bible. right there, i had two more points to talk about. 1 prayer without faith, 2 the bible has many translations and is only one of many holy books.
prayer: they had asked me to pray before they came in preparation of this meeting. i prayed, but it felt almost disrespectful. i asked them if it's ok to pray even if you don't believe in it, and is it really prayer at that point? Notag had the most interesting thing to say in response to that. she said that it was clear that i was earnest in my efforts and that no one would take offense to it, least of all god.
holy books: Swede and Curly said that i would need to read the book of mormon and the bible in order to fully answer my questions. this is how i feel about that: i don't currently believe in the bible or book of mormon as literal truth. they are just books as far as i'm concerned, not revelations from god. therefore if i find myself reading them and convinced thoroughly, i would have to believe that the same could be true of other books as well. maybe the other books would be even more convincing. unfortunately, people spend their entire lives on a single book and single translation. there seems to be so much information to sift through that it's more than i can do before i die, the ultimate deadline for any job. (apparently mormons will baptize someone by proxy even after death, but that wasn't brought up just then). my dilemma with reading the book of mormon or any religious book is that i want to be thorough about it. i have friends who believe and have told me the same thing about the quran (spelling?) and the bhagavad gita. they said that there's only one translation of the book of mormon done by the 14 year old joseph smith in the 1600s from hieroglyphics written on gold tablets, uncovered here in america after being written in 600 b.c. that cuts down the work a little. Swede said that the mormons believe that the king james version was closest to the real bible. truth was like a glass table that was held up by legs. the legs were ... something, i kinda zoned out. jesus? anyway, they were taken away when jesus was on the cross and the table fell and shattered and pieces of the truth went everywhere. then people found little pieces of the truth and clung to them, thinking that what they had found was the entire truth. i didn't get the chance to ask her what made her think that she wasn't doing the same thing, it seemed to dawn on her as she was talking. then she started explaining why she believed mormonism wasn't like that. her reason was that she felt it. she knew inside that it was correct because she had read the books and prayed and she was convinced.
Notag could see that my questions were not being answered. she even acknowledged it out loud. i was quite impressed by the admission. she said that she had been asking the same questions and that she had found her answer through prayer.
i asked why jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. my understanding is that god needed jesus to die on the cross for us in order to restore a relationship with us. the closest thing i can think of to relate with that is this. as a child playing with toys, i might have my toy broken by someone, and i would want to break their toy in response. in that scenario, i'd be god, and breaking the other person's toy is analogous to jesus dying on the cross. this is not a good comparison, i know. it's still the best one i've heard. i have heard that this is just not something we can understand, and that god is so otherworldly that it makes sense in a way beyond our comprehension. Notag tried to answer, but the answer started to get long. i think she drifted a bit. i remember thinking "how is this going to tie back to jesus dying on the cross?"
i also asked if it was my fault if i go my whole life not believing. can i go on asking and pursuing for my entire life and never come to the conclusion that god is real, but still be worthy of heaven? is it really my decision to believe in god? how can i be held responsible when there is nothing in my experience that can lead me to distinguish mormonism (or any religion) being real versus being made up? i believe the main answer was that if i keep asking questions like i am, and seeking answers, that i will have an answer for myself before i die. i have a suspicion that if i manage to continue asking questions and still have no answer by the time i die, i shall be accused of not trying hard enough, not wanting an answer.
at some point these deep questions felt a little exhausted. i asked them if they had seen the show "South Park". Curly and Swede had heard of it, Notag had a cousin who likes the show. i told them of the scene where hell is doing the orientation for the day and some minion explains to the crowd that they are in fact in hell, damned for all eternity, yadda yadda. someone calls out, says that they were devoutly catholic, another says they were an orthodox jew, and others protest as well. to each, the minion responds "no, i'm sorry, catholics was the wrong answer" and finally the minion says "i'm sorry. mormons. mormons is the correct answer.". the mormons thought that was funny. they had a sense of humor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)