Tonight, while playing Animal Crossing [animal-crossing.com] (addictive, don't knock it 'til you try it) I discovered that a new animal had moved into my town. His name is Spork and he's a pig. I was disturbed, expecting to see him trying to trade my new chair for a bottle of pork enhanced beverage. Either Jon is clairvoyant in an incredibly disturbing way or there is a dangerous goats/nintendo conspiracy going on.

Has anyone else noticed any strange connections elsewhere that we can use to create elaborate scenarios? I smell Majestic 12 in the mix here.

This appeared in todays Ucomics:

Mr Spork of the Starship Enterprise [uclick.com]

...not extremely funny, but another coincidence worth noting.

Damn, when I read the name of the discussion I thought this was going to be a giant mock fest of John Stewarts Crossing Over.

He talks to dead people because he was born a little special in the head.

And because no one else would talk to him. He looks queer and smells of cabbage.

In Response to Yoshi (#7780):

The only Crossing Over "John Stewarts" might be doing is to a late night talk show when his Comedy Central contract runs out. John Edwards has people calling to his brain.

In Response to Rich (#7807):

Oooohhhh, I dunno.

John Stewart crosses over the line between good taste and bad taste quite a bit sometimes.

Also the line between "funny" and "good concept, poor execution".

In Response to zamphir (#7810):

...quite a bit sometimes...

Isn't that an oxymoron (no jokes needed, they've been done elsewhere)? I do understand what you're saying though.

In Response to Rich (#7815):

Not necessarily.

It could be that the occurances are not regular, but packed tightly together. So he does it quite a bit all at once, but not at any regular frequency.

Maybe Kenneth knows.

In Response to zamphir (#7817):

Is that the difference between precision and accuracy?

In Response to Grimicus (#7830):

I think you're trying to say that I was either precise but not accurate, or accurate but not precise. And intending it to be mildly insulting.

However, I was actually neither. I have no statistics on which to base my speculations about how often Jon Stewart crosses the line between good taste and bad.

But at least you know enough to know there is a difference between precision and accuracy.

Next, maybe you can explain the difference between morals and ethics to some people here. And then go on to explain why one is appropriate to base legislation on and one is not.

Or am I dreaming of a better world again?

In Response to zamphir (#7833):

I was ridiculed recently for having made the comment that there is nothing inherently unethical about war. Of course, I was in a Catholic church at the time. The suble differences between morals and ethics flew over the heads of my audience, and, realizing that I would not be able to succinctly or satisfactorally explain the differences, I did not further pursue the matter. Still, it is good to know there are those who understand that there are differences between the two -- more than mere semantics.

In Response to zamphir (#7833):

Legislation based upon my morals would make this country a much more interesting place.

-m, author of the Sixteen-to-Twenty-Five Compulsory Thong Act

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#7890):

Everyone thinks that.

They're all wrong, and it's the reason the country is such a mess.

And I think you want to be more careful about that Thong act. Age is not a sufficient criteria in my mind - you probably want to include height/weight ratio, as well.

In Response to zamphir (#7895):

Nope I'm with -m on this one. Legislation based on his morals would make a much more interesting place.

(A pedant wannabe may attribute misreading to you, I can't be bothered as I already know the reply type)

Attractive people are boring. Attractive people wearing revealing clothes are TV world boring. Now a big old chunky arse in tight hipsters with a fluoro thong hanging out the top is interesting.

go -m go.

In Response to tor (#7905):

Nope I'm with -m on this one. Legislation based on his morals would make a much more interesting place.

At least until his morals conflicted with yours.

Now a big old chunky arse in tight hipsters with a fluoro thong hanging out the top is interesting.

Chubby chaser.

go -m go.

Yes. Please do.

In Response to zamphir (#7907):

Nope I'm with -m on this one. Legislation based on his morals would make a much more interesting place.

At least until his morals conflicted with yours.

Regardless if his morals conflicted or not (which they inevitably will), at least it will still be interesting.

In Response to Dynedain (#7910):

at least it will still be interesting

Different is not the same thing as interesting.

In Response to zamphir (#7912):

different is interesting if the usual has become mundane enough

In Response to Dynedain (#7913):

different is interesting if the usual has become mundane enough

William Shatner wearing pasties is different.

It is not interesting.

In Response to zamphir (#7914):

Goodness. So many levels of quoting I'd have to put in, if this board wasn't html-based.

As to my morals conflicting with tor's... they will, and he knows. Trust me on this.

Height - weight ratios are mentioned in the Compulsory Thong Act-- after a certain point, you get to add another quarter-inch of material, or a Tyvek liner. Structural integrity, y'know.

Forcing William Shatner to wear pasties would be interesting only so far as the pasties themselves are interesting. Perhaps Spock action figures?... In any case, that would be a matter for seperate legislation; he certainly isn't between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five, and I find the practice of adding riders to a bill that have nothing to do with its primary purpose thoroughly distasteful. That's why I voted against Skeletor in the last set of senatorial elections, even though that helped Maria Cantwell into power. (Stupid wench actually *supports* the DMCA.)

-m, knows at least three people who consider him interesting. Which reminds me, I get to go visit Bellingham next weekend! woo!