Ouija? – non!

Fell asleep before posting last night. That’s likely to happen often on Sunday nights because a) I’m shattered after the two intense work days and b) I can have whisky because I don’t have to work until 6 pm the next day. Not a combination that encourages wakefulness.

I’ll tidy up the (saved) sleepy ramblings later. This is just a quickie before I head out into the darkness for a short shift.

I don’t own an Ouija board and never will, even though they are becoming popular once again. Simple logic means there can never be a reason to own one.

If they work, if they really do invite ghosts and demons into your home, then they are exceptionally dangerous things to own. You’d be safer with a nitroglycerine ashtray.

If they don’t do anything at all then they are a total waste of money. Rather like buying a telephone that doesn’t fit your connections.

Either way then, there can be no logical reason to ever own one of these little boards.

So that’s saved everyone a few quid. My good deed for the day.

Now I don’t have to be nice to anyone at work.

 

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Ouija? – non!

  1. @Anto – Evolution scientists are known for their wild flights of fancy. Next they’ll be trying to tell us that Neil Orangutan was the first man on the moon in his rocket ship made out of banana skins and powered by alcohol from the “mushy, fermented fruit which was lying on the ground”.

    There’s more chance of me playing with a ouija board, which is absolutely zero. Quite right, Leggy. Like voting LibLabCon = dangerous and stupid.

    And what kind of “scientist” is this? He committed a ‘cardinal sin’ by saying, “Our ape ancestors gained a digestive enzyme… [blah, blah – trying to be famous by making up fairy stories]”.

    I was told off for that five days ago, when I should have inferred (according to evolution-speak), that, “Humans and apes have a common ancestor.”

    Even I shouldn’t have been so lackadaisical in my writing and I’m not an ‘expert’ trying to make a name for myself as a super-intelligent ‘expert’ who devises things like this.

    Then the person who left the comment rightfully dealing with my lackadaisicalness descended into a rant about Catholics and Proddies.

    And combining it all: the spiritual, the moon, alcohol, faith – this was (allegedly) part of the first moon landing that wasn’t talked about, even back then…

    “Just a few minutes on the moon, I did make a statement of reflection asking everyone to give thanks for the moment,” Aldrin said. “And then, with the radio off, I read from the Scripture. Only Neil (Armstrong) heard me.”

    Aldrin took a communion wafer and vial of wine from his minister to the surface of the moon.

    “I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me,” wrote Aldrin years after the mission. “In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup.”

    “Then I read the Scripture, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit.. Apart from me you can do nothing,'” he wrote.

    Aldrin continued, “It was interesting for me to think: the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the communion elements.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/astronaut-buzz-aldrin-reveals-little-known-facts-about-the-first-moon-landing

    Like

    • Actually. Has Buzz just given the game away there that it didn’t happen? Either the scripture reading or the moon mission (take your pick)?

      Back in 1969 he would most likely have used King James Version language, i.e. “ye” rather than “you” and “abideth” and “bringeth”.

      “You”, “Yours”, etc. as blanket words for “Ye”, “Thou”, “Thine”, etc. began to be popular (I assume) after the publication of the New international Version. The New Testament was published first – in 1973, although it is different to this text.

      Did you know that proponents of the new versions of the Bible claim them to be more accurate, but by changing the second person pronouns, they have made them less accurate because you cannot necessarily determine the context?

      Like

      • I have a King James Bible from 1971 (it was still okay for schools to provide all pupils with a free one back then and I still have mine).

        If you recognise the quote, I’ll check it.

        Like

          • I have a Revised Standard Version (1952) of the American Standard Version also. Yes, I have several versions, also the Apocrypha…

            John 15:5 reads – I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

            King James version (1958) – I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

            Like

            • Well you’ve probably noticed that me and SC agreeing on anything biblical is unusual but in this case he is absolutely right about the translations and the whole informal 2nd person thang.

              Mind you I still maintain that letting Xians read the bible is a bad move and the theological equivalent of giving car keys, whiskey and guns to teenage boys.

              I used to have a copy of almost every bible ever printed in English or German but then I discovered the internet and passed on my collection to a local church. Saved a hell of a lot space on my book shelves cos I also had pretty much every Concordance going too (and some of them, ‘Strongs’ for example, are SERIOUS tomes…not only in their brevity but their size too).

              I also had most of the literature most of the major and not so major sects have ever published (Still have a photocopy of the first ever Watchtower somewhere).

              Like

    • Slight ‘whoops’ there – orangutans don’t have the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme so they are teetotal. All the other monkeys are natural-born boozers, like us.

      The enzymne is inducible which means that if you aren’t using it, it stops being made. Someone who doesn’t drink at all is going to get plastered on a couple of pints, whereas some one who uses it frequently will be producing loads. As you are all too well aware, an alcoholic produces masses of the enzyme so is capable of tolerating daily quantities that would kill a non-drinker.

      Humans still produce mutations – okay, they are still human and not a new species so it isn’t really evolution – but it does happen. A mutation producing a new (most likely a slightly different version of an existing enzyme) is small potatoes compared to major things like giantism or dwarfism or Down’s syndrome.

      If the enzyme is useful, if it gives an advantage, then those who have it will out-compete those who don’t through natural selection. Which is not the same thing as evolution although it could potentially lead to it. Natural selection does not, on its own, produce a new species. Just a different set of individuals of the same species, who have now acquired a new skill.

      But this is not the place for a science lecture. One day I’ll try another post on the subject.

      Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s