OT: Re: Tolerance, Heaven and Hell, etc.

[Tom Watson]

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term.

The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

1. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already fr ozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+!

[nailshooter41]

SNIP of legend

I don't know if this oldie but goodie was dusted off as a troll, to amuse, or as a mistake. Funny story, but......

ahead... clickit... you know what's coming.

Hey, I gave Tom the benefit of a doubt, right? I think that makes me tolerant. Or human...

Robert

[Tom Watson]

I intentionally did not do Snopes because I appreciated the argument so much.

Does the fact that Snopes found a previous incarnation detract from the beauty of the argument?

If Snopes found a previous incarnation of: All Men Are Mortal - Socarates Is a Man - Therefore Socrates Is Mortal - would that make any difference to the argument?

What is your great point?

.>>

Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

[nailshooter41]

Well Tom, if you want to take me to task, let's take a quick look.

You did not post this load of crap as a myth, amus>The following is an actual question given on a >University of Washington

chemistry mid term.

presenting this as a truthful post on your behalf. I took "actual" as meaning it happened in this case, but you might have an alternate meaning. Please elucidate your current meaning of "actual" if it differs from a representation of the truth or a fact.

To wrap it up, you wrote (or in your case, copied and pasted)

All in caps to help accentuate the irony, written as a comment as if to punctuate it further.

Never once did you cite, reference, allude to, or hint that the story was a total falsehood. Now it sounds like you knew it was a lie all along. For someone that loves to correct people on their misuse or misunderstanding of facts as YOU interpret them, I was surprised that you would attempt to pass that off as a true story.

For many here that don't know you, without the proper acknowledgment as to the origin of the piece, they probably concluded that fib as told by you to be the truth.

I know, I know. And is God so powerful that he himself could create a rock so large he himself could not lift it?*

Clever line, but irrelevant. You posted a load of baloney, I gave your integrity the benefit of the doubt on it, and it wasn't necessary. As I see now, it wasn't a mistake at all.

At the first response, there was none other than to see if you fell into something unknowingly. A clever premise backed by humorous and ironic writing can be quite entertaining and grow legs of its own. Keeping that in mind, my gently worded response didn't call you out into an untenable position for being deceptive or at the least, too lazy to check on the source. I did give you the benefit of a doubt.

Actually, I see now that was indeed pointless.

Robert

• attrib: George Carlin

(See above? That's how it's done. You don't knowingly take credit for the work of others. Bad form, old boy.)

[Tom Watson]

It takes a special kind of mind to take a humorous post and turn it into something boring.

Congratulations.

Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

[Woodie]

In his defense - it wasn't really ALL that humorous...

[nailshooter41]

And the winner of the straw man award goes to:

Robert

[Tom Watson]

You're circling the bowl for a final time.............bye bye.

Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

[nailshooter41]

Run little Tommy, run!

Robert