A shepherd is tending his sheep, and a man comes by and says, "If I guess the correct number of your sheep, can I have one?"The shepherd says, "Please try."
The man looks at the flock and says "Eighty-three."
The shepherd is completely amazed that he got the right number. The man picks up a sheep and starts to walk away.
The shepherd says, "Wait! If I guess your profession, can I have my sheep back?"
The man says, "Sure."
The shepherd says, "You must be a mathematical biologist."
The man says, "How did you know?"
"Because you picked up my dog."
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Mathematical Biology Joke
I found this rather entertaining mathematical biology joke. You can read the context at The Loom.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Dembskian Intelligent Design: A Front for Religion
(Note: This was my first post at my first web log. However, that web log has since been deleted, and I cannot even remember its title. I thought I had posted this when I moved to this blogging service, but I guess I did not. The following was my first attempt to expose the ID movement as religiously-centered organization moreso than a truely scientific enterprise. Go easy since it was my first rant against William Dembski)
From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':
The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.
Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.
Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.
Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.
From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':
Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's [William] Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.Willaim Dembski's remarks in this meeting and a trend in his writing gives evidence that his version of Intelligent Design is simply a ploy to teach religion, specifically Christianity, in the school system. Intelligent Design is simply a front to religion. As demonstrated by the previous quote by Dembski, one of the leading components of the movement, as well as what he wrote in his paper titled "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" (published in Debating Design by Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge Press 2004):
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
Inteligent Design...teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms (323).Or in other words, the agent of intelligence is above natural mechanisms or essentially is God. Dembski has thus rehashed the First Cause argument of Aquinas to include an intelligent entity which is seperate from the universe but still mintains interactions within it. Though plausible, this statement is not back with empirical evidence or even deduced nor induced by observable datum but asserted. Dembski continues on in the conclusion:
Science is supposed to give the full range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed...[S]cience may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any consideration of empirical evidence (329).Utilizing natural mechanisms as the sole explanation is not an arbitrary assignment from authority, or a fiat. It is from the lack of supporting evidence of a transcendent intelligence. Namely, by the definition of the term itself we would be unable to observe nor comprehend such a specimen, and as such it would simply be speculation as opposed to evidentiary synthesis concerning the pathway of origins. What is worse is this speculation is based entirely off of propositional logic, the form of logic which some scientists would argue is the antithesis of the scientific method or just simply bad science.
The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.
Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.
Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.
Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.
Jesus and Cruise Missles Go Hand in Hand
Ah, my favorite Christian organization (Campus Crusade for Christ International) seems to be back in the news causing commotion. However, this time it's with the Pentagon.
The Pentagon's Inspector General recently released a 45-page report concerning the alleged misconduct of several DOD officials concerning the making of a religious video by Christian Embassy. Christian Embassy, according to its website, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement." Clicking around on their site reveals they are associated with the CCCI, a known fundamentalist evangelical organization with a statement of faith as ridiculous as that movie Good Burger (except not as comical because the followers actually believe in it).
You can watch the movie in question here for self-amusement. It makes me a bit uneasy to see several top military leaders in a seemingly official capacity (eg rank and uniform) proclaiming their unyielding faith. My uneasiness isn't only because I feel their belief in the make-believe to be abhorrent (let bygones be bygones), but when proclaiming such nonsense in an official capacity makes it seem like the entire lot of our military are fanatical fundamentalists bent on spreading the gospel by rifle and missle. It's bad enough our government is ran by a man who is "born-again"; it would be nice to have some reassurance that there are some sane people left in the higher ranks of the organization whose mission is to protect our Constitution.
But who am I kidding? The American government (and now our military) seems to be a gathering place of kooks and woos. This video is just more of a wake-up call then anything else. It also contains a bit of irony. Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson states his solution to the "war on terror":"What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Ironic, because it seems like it was our President who under the moral compass and guidance of (his brand of) Christianity got us in this mess.
Piety is one thing, but I think we need more than just people who are pious to get out of this mess. Something tells me someone with good common sense and a strong head concerning foreign affairs would be more beneficial than someone who believes that God speaks to him or that modern morality should reflect the ancient writings of ignorant goat and sheep herders. This country's leaders make me sick at times.
(Hat tip: Pharyngula)
The Pentagon's Inspector General recently released a 45-page report concerning the alleged misconduct of several DOD officials concerning the making of a religious video by Christian Embassy. Christian Embassy, according to its website, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement." Clicking around on their site reveals they are associated with the CCCI, a known fundamentalist evangelical organization with a statement of faith as ridiculous as that movie Good Burger (except not as comical because the followers actually believe in it).
You can watch the movie in question here for self-amusement. It makes me a bit uneasy to see several top military leaders in a seemingly official capacity (eg rank and uniform) proclaiming their unyielding faith. My uneasiness isn't only because I feel their belief in the make-believe to be abhorrent (let bygones be bygones), but when proclaiming such nonsense in an official capacity makes it seem like the entire lot of our military are fanatical fundamentalists bent on spreading the gospel by rifle and missle. It's bad enough our government is ran by a man who is "born-again"; it would be nice to have some reassurance that there are some sane people left in the higher ranks of the organization whose mission is to protect our Constitution.
But who am I kidding? The American government (and now our military) seems to be a gathering place of kooks and woos. This video is just more of a wake-up call then anything else. It also contains a bit of irony. Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson states his solution to the "war on terror":"What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Ironic, because it seems like it was our President who under the moral compass and guidance of (his brand of) Christianity got us in this mess.
Piety is one thing, but I think we need more than just people who are pious to get out of this mess. Something tells me someone with good common sense and a strong head concerning foreign affairs would be more beneficial than someone who believes that God speaks to him or that modern morality should reflect the ancient writings of ignorant goat and sheep herders. This country's leaders make me sick at times.
(Hat tip: Pharyngula)
Monday, August 6, 2007
Random Amusement from the Library
My university library uses the LCCO. I decided to look at my school's Bible collection out of boredom today when I discovered that the Bibles are humorously classified in the BS section. That is, every call number begins with the letters BS.
Bible BS (from CollegeHumor)
Perhaps it's a cheap laugh, but I needed one today.
Bible BS (from CollegeHumor)
Perhaps it's a cheap laugh, but I needed one today.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
X False X
There has been hype around the science blogosphere about the recently distributed behemoth Atlas of Creation by Islamic creationist Harun Yahya. Even newspapers, like the New York Times, have began commenting on the book (despitean online version being available for quite sometime now). So far, my favorite assessment of the book comes from Kevin Padian of UC Berkley, as stated in the linked NYT article: "[Recipients of Atlas were] just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is."
Jeremiah McNichols points out his favorite part of the entire book: it's visuals. Namely, some of the figures have big red x's across the image with the word FALSE written in big bold letters. McNichols has some examples on his page.
This visual tactic is absolutely great! I must adopt it for everything I find annoying. Go buy the X FALSE X gear and help spread the aspect of visual skepticism; all proceeds go the the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Jeremiah McNichols points out his favorite part of the entire book: it's visuals. Namely, some of the figures have big red x's across the image with the word FALSE written in big bold letters. McNichols has some examples on his page.
This visual tactic is absolutely great! I must adopt it for everything I find annoying. Go buy the X FALSE X gear and help spread the aspect of visual skepticism; all proceeds go the the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Women Came from the Penile "Rib" Bone
In the beginning, the God of the Bible created mammals (and a bunch of other stuff), and the males of these mammals had a baculum (penis bone) to aid in copulation. Quite literally, the bone enables the male and female to remain in coitus for an extended period of time maximizing fertilization potential. Perhaps the greatest invention by God, but he did not bestow it upon Man.
Or did he at one time but then took it back? Funny thing is, there is no word for penis in Biblical Hebrew. Is it possible that God took the male baculum to make Eve out of and that the perineal raphe is a sort of divine reminder of where women came from (recall: 'the Lord...closed up the flesh instead thereof)? After all, it is a well-known fact that men and women have the same number of ribs. So, perhaps God used a bone that, to the sheep-herders who wrote the Bible, looked very much like a rib, thus the false association. Or it could also be linked to the weak association of the Hebrew word translated as 'rib' in Genesis 2 (tsela) but appears elsewhere meaning a general support structure.
However, I rather like the former description, if only for its humor factor. God once blessed Man with a very hard penis, but now we must use a hydraulic system that depends on our health (blood pressure, mostly, which is affected by stress and disease). Seriously, what is up with God's thorough infatuation with the male anatomy and sex in general? Is it perhaps a form of Freudian penis envy (thus, God is a woman) or God is envious of the size/prowess of the human male genitalia (thus god is male)?
So, remember ladies. You were made from my penis bone. It is thus your duty to honor my gigantic penis.
(Note: Thanks to Jeb for finding my error in the title of my post)
Or did he at one time but then took it back? Funny thing is, there is no word for penis in Biblical Hebrew. Is it possible that God took the male baculum to make Eve out of and that the perineal raphe is a sort of divine reminder of where women came from (recall: 'the Lord...closed up the flesh instead thereof)? After all, it is a well-known fact that men and women have the same number of ribs. So, perhaps God used a bone that, to the sheep-herders who wrote the Bible, looked very much like a rib, thus the false association. Or it could also be linked to the weak association of the Hebrew word translated as 'rib' in Genesis 2 (tsela) but appears elsewhere meaning a general support structure.
However, I rather like the former description, if only for its humor factor. God once blessed Man with a very hard penis, but now we must use a hydraulic system that depends on our health (blood pressure, mostly, which is affected by stress and disease). Seriously, what is up with God's thorough infatuation with the male anatomy and sex in general? Is it perhaps a form of Freudian penis envy (thus, God is a woman) or God is envious of the size/prowess of the human male genitalia (thus god is male)?
So, remember ladies. You were made from my penis bone. It is thus your duty to honor my gigantic penis.
(Note: Thanks to Jeb for finding my error in the title of my post)
Friday, July 20, 2007
A War with Iran would defeat historical precedent.
Washington's latest attempt to rally the American war-machine seems to fall on deaf ears. At least, on my deaf ears.
People who are gun-ho for a war with Iran seem to lack any education concerning war politics and the history of war itself. Whenever a regime falls, would it not be in the best interest of a nearest neighbor with the capacity to influence the new regime proceed to attempt to influence the regime? That is, when Hussein's regime fell, the new order in Iraq became open to outside influence and persuasion. Essentially, America lit the vacancy sign over Iraq, allowing area Turks, Jihadists, Iranians, Kurds, etc. to enter en masse to stake out their own sphere of influence (not to mention internal desires of the Iraqis). Welcome to political economics 101 where the game is to maximize marginal utility.
Administration officials and some legislatures seem intent on positing that Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq by arming and training insurgents. I am a Patriot, but the rational side of me can see through the appeal to my patriotism. As Stephen Kinzer points out, there are several instance in history where a country indirectly aided an enemy of ours, and in each instance we did not go to war with the aiding country. China gave munitions and training to the North Koreans. The USSR gave munitions to the North Vietnamese. In several instances when America supplied munitions to one side in a conflict, the opossing side did not declare war on us.
The US treads on dangerous waters. A war with Iran would be detrimental to not only our reputation and our military, but to the entire world's health. I hate to be a fear-monger, but don't blink: this administration may lead us right into WW3.
People who are gun-ho for a war with Iran seem to lack any education concerning war politics and the history of war itself. Whenever a regime falls, would it not be in the best interest of a nearest neighbor with the capacity to influence the new regime proceed to attempt to influence the regime? That is, when Hussein's regime fell, the new order in Iraq became open to outside influence and persuasion. Essentially, America lit the vacancy sign over Iraq, allowing area Turks, Jihadists, Iranians, Kurds, etc. to enter en masse to stake out their own sphere of influence (not to mention internal desires of the Iraqis). Welcome to political economics 101 where the game is to maximize marginal utility.
Administration officials and some legislatures seem intent on positing that Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq by arming and training insurgents. I am a Patriot, but the rational side of me can see through the appeal to my patriotism. As Stephen Kinzer points out, there are several instance in history where a country indirectly aided an enemy of ours, and in each instance we did not go to war with the aiding country. China gave munitions and training to the North Koreans. The USSR gave munitions to the North Vietnamese. In several instances when America supplied munitions to one side in a conflict, the opossing side did not declare war on us.
The US treads on dangerous waters. A war with Iran would be detrimental to not only our reputation and our military, but to the entire world's health. I hate to be a fear-monger, but don't blink: this administration may lead us right into WW3.
Poor Design: God and DNA (YouTube video)
I came across the following YouTube video. I will warn you; there are pictures of birth defects not for the faint of heart.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Prominent ID member quote mines for the win...
Over at Uncommon Descent, Salvador Cordova (scordova) has managed to construct a quote mine from a recent PNAS paper..
Cordova quotes Masatoshi Nei: "Natural selection...is not the fundamental cause of evolution." As experience has shown, anytime an ellipse appears is a red flag that quote mining has ensued. The full quote, as written by Nei, reads: "Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution."
The Nei paper, as addressed by it's abstract, is presenting the notion that instead of phentoypic evolution being driven by natural selection with genetic mutation being an undercurrent, the roles of each are actually reversed. A novel notion, in my opinion, and the paper far exceeds my level of expertise in the topic. However, I don't see how this flies in the face of modern synthesis (aka "Neo-Darwinism"). The units of change are still genes, and a contributing factor to evolution is still natural selection via population dynamics. Nei seems to argue that the contribution of evolution via natural selection is less than that of mutation.
Cordova is doing nothing more than attempting to claim a cheap victory by a misquote. He thinks the paper contains some level of profundity to warrant mentioning. It reads like a new perspective on thinking of the contribution of mutation to natural selection.
Cordova's side-tangent into the fictitious Haldane's dilemma is evidence enough for me to not take him serious, though.
Cordova quotes Masatoshi Nei: "Natural selection...is not the fundamental cause of evolution." As experience has shown, anytime an ellipse appears is a red flag that quote mining has ensued. The full quote, as written by Nei, reads: "Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution."
The Nei paper, as addressed by it's abstract, is presenting the notion that instead of phentoypic evolution being driven by natural selection with genetic mutation being an undercurrent, the roles of each are actually reversed. A novel notion, in my opinion, and the paper far exceeds my level of expertise in the topic. However, I don't see how this flies in the face of modern synthesis (aka "Neo-Darwinism"). The units of change are still genes, and a contributing factor to evolution is still natural selection via population dynamics. Nei seems to argue that the contribution of evolution via natural selection is less than that of mutation.
Cordova is doing nothing more than attempting to claim a cheap victory by a misquote. He thinks the paper contains some level of profundity to warrant mentioning. It reads like a new perspective on thinking of the contribution of mutation to natural selection.
Cordova's side-tangent into the fictitious Haldane's dilemma is evidence enough for me to not take him serious, though.
It seems fitting...
Your Score: Haughty Intellectual
You are 100% Rational, 28% Extroverted, 14% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant.
You are the Haughty Intellectual. You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing. You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it. Not only that, but you also tend to look down on others, thinking yourself better than them. You could possibly have an unhealthy obsession with yourself as well, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat. On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Like so many countless pseudo-intellectuals swarming around vacuous internet forums to discuss worthless political issues, your kind is a scourge upon humanity, blathering and blathering on and on about all kinds of boring crap. If your personality could be sculpted, the resulting piece would be Rodin's "The Thinker"--although I am absolutely positive that you are not nearly as muscular or naked as that statue. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual! And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! But no worries!
To put it less negatively:
1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.
2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted.
3. You are more GENTLE than brutal.
4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.
Compatibility:
Your exact opposite is the Schoolyard Bully. (Bullies like to beat up nerds, after all.)
Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Braggart, the Hand-Raiser, and the Robot.
*
*
If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.
The other personality types:
The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
Be sure to take my Sublime Philosophical Crap Test if you are interested in taking a slightly more intellectual test that has just as many insane ramblings as this one does!
About Saint_Gasoline
I am a self-proclaimed pseudo-intellectual who loves dashes. I enjoy science, philosophy, and fart jokes and water balloons, not necessarily in that order. I spend 95% of my time online, and the other 5% of my time in the bathroom, longing to get back on the computer. If, God forbid, you somehow find me amusing instead of crass and annoying, be sure to check out my blog and my webcomic at SaintGasoline.com.
| Link: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
