Comments by epeeist

1651. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133392 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #133361 by AshtonBlack

Dude, we Brits ARE Europeans. I mean, there is a small minority of peeps who would like to "up anchor" and float the HMS "Great Britain" to the other side of the pond, but alas we are still part of the continent of Europe.

There are some people whose mindset is set in home counties of the 1950's who would like that small part of England to be divorced from the rest of the UK, never mind Europe. This would generate a paradise with warm beer, village cricket, the church clock standing at half past three with honey sandwiches for tea.

1652. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133353 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #133352 by annabanana

Of course, I live in the Bible Belt of the US right now

Hi Anna, the parents of my daughter's boyfriend are coming to visit us shortly. They hail from Arkansas. Could you suggest some good topics of conversation ;-)

Nice picture by the way.

1653. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #133335 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:52 am

Just listening to Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" from last week (Podcast available from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ website). The topic is the Multiverse. Good introductory piece.

Also came across Celestia - http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ Quite impressive.

1654. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133316 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #133312 by Quetzalcoatl

Pah, karate. What about Tae Kwon Do?

Nothing in the paper about it. Though watching a couple of videos, I think against a sabreur with a sharp blade they would probably lose feet.

1655. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133307 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #133277 by LuisGarcia

If so, read this.

clickety click

Which falls flat on its face. The author(s) can't tell the difference betwee a valid and a sound argument.

1656. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133305 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #133302 by The Reverend Dark

(And no, I am not going to get into 'The Ultimate Battle of Ultimate Destiny' with Epeeist.)

Agreed, too much difference in both styles and aims.

You might care to have a look at this though - http://www.esgrima.cat/barcelona2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=46

These are the abstracts from the 1st conference on science and technology in fencing which took place in Barcelona recently. I was one of the participants. It is mostly about sports fencing, but there are one or two papers on the history of fencing and duelling as well as knife fighting that might interest you. The physiological aspects should be applicable as well.

For the martial artists - there is an interesting paper showing that fencers have better reaction times and can identify situations significantly better than karate practitioners.

1657. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133301 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #133295 by The Reverend Dark

The link to the theobald paper that epeeist posted is another great place to start.

But if you come back in the next day and tell us you have read it then, in the inimitable words of irate_atheist, we will know you are a lying fucktard.

1658. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133293 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #133287 by wooter

1. How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

Wooter - once and for all

Mutations are random; Selection is non-random. This means that overall evolution is not random.

Just because things look designed doesn't prove they are

Even if they were designed you have yet to prove that:
- They were designed by a god
- That this god is still interfering in the world
- That this god is the one you believe in

Incidentally - we have answered all of your questions. How about answering one of mine, what do you think of the scientific credentials of the people who wrote this paper - http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/article.asp?doi=f29757101091

1659. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133242 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #133218 by sent2nullThe funny thing about site "blocking" to IT geeks like myself is that it is rarely ever done properly.
So the truism holds - the Internet sees any attempt to block it as damage and routes around it.

1660. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133236 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #133166 by Shmeezers

How so? Please tell me. Has anyone ever been able to witness new material being added to the genome - i.e., the process of macro-evolution?

And you get the obligatory link to the Theobald paper - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

1661. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132873 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #132869 by Shmeezers

The fact that these essays are not published in popular science reviews says nothing. I wouldn't expect evolutionists to publish something that puts their theory into question. This observation is rather elementary. Please understand that Darwinism is a religion, and it does not tolerate any dissent. (This blog demonstrates that quite clearly.)

They aren't published in anything that has any thing to do with science, never mind popular science reviews. Why? Because they aren't science.

As for your conspiracy theory - it is a nonsense. Think of all the scientists you know, all the famous ones. Why are they famous? Because they disproved the then accepted theories. Come up with a new theory (and I mean theory, not some off hand conjecture) that disproves the theory of evolution and you are looking at a Nobel prize. The journal that publishes your work will bask in the reflected glory.

And I would change your sentence "This observation is rather elementary." to "This assertion is simplistic and has no backing".

1662. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132835 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #132831 by The Reverend Dark

Where is your scientific proof of your claim that Beelzebuffo Ampinga is the same as modern frogs?

A frog he would a wootering go, hey ho said Rowley...

Sorry, couldn't resist it. One that I used to sing to my kids when they were about five. Of course they could tell the difference between the frogs we got in our pond and the ones in Chester zoo by that age.

1663. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132712 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #132704 by Geoff

Rather than constantly asking them for evidence for their deity, which the above seems to show is futile, (and which we've seen so often just leads to "la, la, la, I can't hear you") would it be more effective, say, to put more emphasis on first pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies of their "truth"?

I don't think so - as I have said before if the evidence shows a scientific theory is wrong then we discard the theory. If the evidence shows that faith is wrong then the evidence is discarded.

I think the way to do it is to only work on their beliefs, we are aiming to show theism is false not that atheism is true.

This being so then we ought to be looking at the consequences of faith and showing that these are not fulfilled.

1664. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132705 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #132548 by The Reverend Dark

Here you go, kicking Milton in the nards concerning his fabricated claims on uranium 238
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

You beat me to it.

The thing that these people don't seem to have a clue about is consilience. If there was a single way of dating things then they might have a point, but there are multiple methods of dating all of which agree with each other.

Similarly for shorter range dating using Carbon dating, dendrochronology, ice cores, varves etc.

1665. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132588 by epeeist on February 25, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #132249 by Bonzai

Quine's nitpicking has nothing to do with string theory, it is about the inductive nature of science.

But of course science isn't inductive, it is hypothetico-deductive.

Take no notice of Quine, martial arts people would lose arms before they got anywhere near somebody with a real blade.

1666. Fleabytes

Comment #132207 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #132202 by krisking

5. and all wars and other problems will cease.

No. Wars and problems caused by religion may cease, you will still have wars and problems with nationalism, ethnicity, resource shortages and a whole stack of other causes. Some of these will have a similar irrational belief basis as religion.

1667. Fleabytes

Comment #132119 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 8:16 am

Comment #132054 by mikejswalker

Can we keep David on topic? Ignore the fluff.
Not give him a chance to ignore our points by referring to our anger. Invective and mundane epithets get used to defend a position that is spurious at best. Also people of all persuasions should be encouraged to come here and debate these issues.

I have been on one or two theist sites at the behest of Brian Coughlin. All the participants, without exception, were limited in the approach and knowledge and joyless in their expressions.

I am not keen on invective and it can get overdone at times. But you have such a wide variety of points of view here and they are expressed in a large number of ways. I wouldn't want to limit that. Steve is obviously top notch on science, MPhil on logic and philosophy, Cartomancer on history and the scholastics, Billy Sands the bible, Paula has shown her self to a good analytical writer, Diacanu wields prose like a knife. And this is only a selection of the people who post here. There is a shared sense of enjoyment and humour which more than compensates for the oppobrius epithets.

1668. The coming religious peace

Comment #132057 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #132052 by Titus

I suspect that education is the key. Those countries with a higher GDP spend a great deal more on educating their young than those in the third world.

Education is the key, but it has to be the right type and quality. If you spend a good deal on male education and a third of your population is studying the Qu'ran at university it isn't going to do a lot of good in the long term.

If you educate girls and make sure they have support (micro-banking and the like) it will be much more effective.

Is the reason that the States is such an outlier that their education system is poor and the religious tend to home school?

1669. Fleabytes

Comment #132033 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 1:17 am

Comment #132027 by Steve Zara

Vox describes how complexity can arise from a simple state using fractals, so that the whole universe could have come from a very simple designed state.

If current cosmological theories are anywhere near the truth then the initial universe would have been simple, and hence could be the production of a simple designer. However, such a designer would not have been able to impose a specific direction on the development of the universe and certainly wouldn't be capable of generating each individual snowflake (sorry!). Unless the designer evolved of course, but that would undermine the omnipotence and omniscience properties of course.

One of the other things you might care to look at his definition of science. He has a brief waltz with the idea of falsifiability ("all gods speak Aramaic") but doesn't include the other bits, like evidence and empirical strength. He obviously either doesn't understand the ideas or finds that he can't use his straw man arguments so he opts for a simpler, operational definition put forward by PZ Myers.

1670. The coming religious peace

Comment #132026 by epeeist on February 24, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #131842 by Spinoza

Just goes to show that correlation doesn't equal causality... and just cause we'd like something to be true, doesn't make it true. :)

Pity really. Otherwise we could point out that atheism makes you rich.

1671. Fleabytes

Comment #131699 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #131686 by irate_atheist

...the same pool of beliefs all of which will have a similar consistency.

The consistency of slurry.

To you of course, to believers it might be more like Creme Brulee.

But this is the whole point about coherence theories, as Russell pointed out it cannot distinguish truth from a consistent fairy tale.

1672. Fleabytes

Comment #131689 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #131670 by clearthinker

Do scientists not operate on the principle of uniformitarianism? Is that not faith?

No they don't. The presumption of uniformity is equivalent to accepting induction by repetition.

It is from that particular philosophy that your atheism comes. It is your creed. You cannot prove it because it itself is unprveable in your own materialist terms. You assume it and you engage in the circular argument of 'prove to me that there is something outside of the material, and you must do so in a material way!'.

So we now have a "creed" as well as "tenets". Yet again, you have still to describe this creed or the tenets though I have asked you to do so at least four times to my knowledge. Avoiding answering my request would indicate to me that all you are doing is making an assertion.

If you were positing an entity that operated purely outside the natural (whatever that means) then asking for material evidence would be ridiculous.

However, this entity of yours supposedly interferes in the material world. This being so, asking for physical evidence is perfectly appropriate.

1673. Fleabytes

Comment #131684 by epeeist on February 23, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #131672 by stevencarrwork

What is this utter garbage Robertson spews about evidence only being what can be proved in a lab?

Because he doesn't want to acknowledge that truth consists of correspondence with the facts.

Rather he is looking for coherence as a test of truth. This allows him to select a warranted set of beliefs that one can consider as true. It also allows him to discard other material as not belonging to that warranted set.

Unfortunately one can select different sets from the same pool of beliefs all of which will have a similar consistency. Which set one characterises as true is then down to personal opinion.

1674. Fleabytes

Comment #131496 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #131427 by al-rawandi

Don't get me going on women an logic. Near as I could tell it was the same argument.

I see the British humour (note the "u") went straight over your head.

Go to a busy pub in the UK with your friends and significant others. At some point one of the women will decide to go to the toilet (bathroom to you). Now in the UK, they always go in pairs and they always take their handbags (purses) with them. When they get there the cubicles are always full.

So they have to queue to pee.

It really is hard work sometimes.

1675. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131486 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #131478 by Cartomancer

Atheist TV programmes such as "Atheist eye for the godly guy?" where Steve Zara, Paula Kirby and Diacanu go round altering churches to be more to their tastes?

Atheist Feng Shui?

1676. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131482 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #131466 by quill

I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but "no adherence" does not mean "no religion".

Not sure about this (especially after downing a large amount of red wine).

It probably means "I have a vague feeling that I ought to believe in some kind of god and the local religion is [insert religion here] so I will profess to that even though I am not an active adherent." In the UK, it means CofE even though the only time you go to church is for hatch, match and despatch ceremonies.

I can remember going in to hospital many years ago and being asked what my religion was. When I said I wasn't active in any religion (this was before I converted to atheism) the nurse said "I will put you down as CofE."

1677. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131462 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #131445 by krisking

At the moment, I don't think I agree with this; mostly because there is so much religion in the world. Where did it all come from? Why does it exist at all?

You missed the addendum - "and why is it all different if it is ineffably true?"

Oh, and "what happens to gods when nobody believes in them any more?"

1678. Fleabytes

Comment #131425 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #131386 by MPhil

But technically, you cannot infer Q from P

It really depends whether you are female or not.

As my maths teacher used to say, while in vector algebra you go from P to Q, if you are female it is a matter of going to Q to P.

1679. Fleabytes

Comment #131092 by epeeist on February 22, 2008 at 12:35 am

Comment #131088 by Artful_Dodger

In my view the treatment that Robertson has received on this site is absolutely despicable and unworthy of a community of people who pride themselves in their recognition and their use of level-headed rational discourse.

I presume you have gone back and read some of the posts that David Robertson has posted here in all his different guises in the past?

I would advise you to do so before you make comments like the above. Mr. Robertson has, quite deliberately as far as I can see, posted material with a deliberate aim of generating inflamed responses that he can use elsewhere to show how loathsome atheists are.

Those of us who have been on the site for a while know how manipulative he can be.

1680. Fleabytes

Comment #130792 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #130781 by clearthinker

Anyway I am off to the University of Dundee to give a lecture on science and religion. Should be fun...

And then on Monday to Queens in Belfast on the same theme.. feel free to join us. At least Christians believe in free speech.

So presumably this means that once again I don't get an answer to my question.

For the newer people on the site. David Robertson has a standard technique. He comes to the site using a form of dialogue normally referred to as Personal Quarrel. This is characterised by personal attacks and the generation of emotional disquiet. The aim of his posts is to get people irate so that they then respond in anger (the insinuation that atheists don't believe in free speech in the extract above is fairly typical). He then takes these responses and claims them as typical of atheist attitudes.

Another technique, implied by Paula, is the use of the fallacy of composition. The standard example here is that Stalin, Mao etc. were atheists therefore all atheists share the same standards of morality as these figures.

Finally, as I intimate above, he doesn't answer questions or provides irrelevant answers.

Stay cool, stay calm and don't rise to the bait.

1681. Fleabytes

Comment #130743 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 8:18 am

Comment #130685 by clearthinker

1) It is not difficult to offend the fundamentalist atheists on this website.

Your first post back where you have identified yourself and you immediately start into the mode of dialogue known as "personal quarrel". This, and the fact that you then take the responses to place on your own site was what got you banned.

Incidentally - you still owe me an answer. What are the "tenets" (your word) of atheism over and above the non-belief in gods. To my knowledge I have asked you this at least three times and got no response each time.

1682. Fleabytes

Comment #130622 by epeeist on February 21, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #130579 by clearthinker

Why is the Wee Flea not allowed to respond?

There was some discussion on allowing Mr. Robertson to post here, some were for banning him, others wanted his comments moved to an alternative thread.

Much of the discussion came about because of the deliberate tactic by the wee flea of causing offence and hence adverse comments which he then posted on his own site to show how unpleasant and anti-rational we were.

1683. Fleabytes

Comment #130572 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Comment #130474 by Steve Zara

Relevant to the topic and that post, The Bishop has been posting in the last day or so. I could well be wrong, but the combination of lowbrow reasoning, rudeness, question-dodging, references to the "right kind of Christian", the idea that atheists are going to destroy the world and general word use, suggests Flea-ness to me.

I wasn't sure at first, but all the above plus the fishing for insults (which the flea then used on his website) have made me wonder whether the Bishop is a wee flea in drag.

1684. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130401 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Comment #130372 by The Bishop

I won't believe in this God person
Let's be honest. Atheism is very facile.

Well it isn't quite lying for Jesus, but quote mining isn't far off.

Of course quote mining something from two posts above isn't exactly bright.

Diacanu asked for some evidence - can you supply some or are you just going to selectively quote him?

I thought Steve Zara was wrong identifying you as the wee flea, now I am not quite so sure.

1685. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #130366 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I liked this article in the Miami Herald - http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/story/421075.html

1686. Fleabytes

Comment #130364 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #130342 by Phoenix42

Well done Paula. You deserve some kind of medal for working through all those fleas!

How about a tub of this - http://www.choiceful.com/choiceful-id-101995-Canac-Household-Flea-Powder-300g.html

1687. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130336 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #130332 by Steve Zara

Just a quick note guys: I note a remarkable similarity between the style of the Bishop and the Wee Flea. Might be worth investigating.

Do they have bishops in the FCoS?

If it is, he is on the wrong thread. He ought to be reading Paula's critique.

1688. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130119 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 5:49 am

Comment #130086 by wooter

epeeist, Irate, LorienRyan
When you go up to the level of logic and science from being funny, I promise, I will answer you seriously.

Wooter - if you have any logic it is of the most deviant kind I have ever seen.

As for science - you might want to try criticising this paper - http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/F2/article.asp?doi=F29757101091

It hasn't got anything to do with evolution or snowflakes (though it has a lot to do with symmetry). I would be interested to know what you think of the scientific credentials of the authors.

1689. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129551 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #129548 by Geoff

Dollis Hill, of course.

Hah - Mornington Crescent. (Wikipedia rules)

1690. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129483 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 7:41 am

Comment #129470 by Roland_F

Both the hexagonal heat convection streams in heated up liquids or the honeycomb is first circular and under pressure just naturally forming to the hexagonal shape as first gap free possibility of a flat area. Circles leave gaps, octagons leave small square gaps, and hexagons are the first shape to fill a flat area without gaps.

It doesn't sound too much different to the close packing arrangements you get in crystals.

I might have believed it to be intelligently designed if the arrangement was a Penrose tiling...

1691. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129404 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #129403 by irate_atheist

I'll go for South Kensington - close enough to the Natural History Museum to walk to it.

I already had Cromwell Road!

Never mind, final move before a nice cup of tea. One that I thought you might try - Russell Street.

1692. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129390 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 3:49 am

Comment #129385 by irate_atheist

Aha!!!! Cannon Street!

If only, if only...

You missed a tempo there.

Exhibition Road - another place where a wooter will never be seen. I think that only leaves you one move.

1693. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129384 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 3:35 am

Comment #129338 by irate_atheist

Ealing Broadway.

Cromwell Road.

No wooter there, guaranteed.

1694. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129317 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 1:28 am

Comment #129300 by krisking

I am not convinced that you are right. But in any case, if you believe in evolution, belief in a deity has to have been part of the process.

Steve beat me to it. It is strange for a number of regions:

There is no "belief" in evolution, it is a theory that has been well tested and survived all the tests. That still only makes it contingently valid, it could be proven wrong tomorrow (though this is unlikely)
The second part is simply not connected to the first in any logical way

If you look at the various mythologies you will find that the older ones don't have deities per se, they have (to use a Terry Pratchett phrase) "anthropomorphic personifications". It is only later that gods (and priests) develop.

1695. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129299 by epeeist on February 19, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #129293 by Steve Zara

Without their mono-theistic beliefs and well-developed religious systems, they would surely never have survived as an identifiable entity given the hammering they have taken over the centuries.

Sorry, but this is easily shown to be nonsense. Almost without exception the vast amount of hammering that religious people have received over the centures is from each other

Agreed, if you look at, for example, Greek mythology you can see gods disappearing or being assimilated as conquests occurred.

And to make a second point, just because people believe in particular things doesn't make them true. How many people now believe in Eurynome, Uranus, Cronos or Zeus (to give four generations)?

1696. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128956 by epeeist on February 18, 2008 at 11:05 am

Comment #128955 by Cartomancer

Though I generally try to avoid Christchurch for everything but theology lectures.

It tends to be the favourite college for conferences, as Kings is at Cambridge. I have been to a fair number there.

When I did the summer school on theoretical chemistry I was based in Wadham.

1697. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128923 by epeeist on February 18, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #126663 by Cartomancer

"Second Intentions" is a very technical part of scholastic psychology.

It is also a term in fencing. It originally meant getting your opponent inside the line of your main weapon and then finishing him off with a second weapon.

These days it means setting your opponent up so that they perform an action to which you have a prepared counter action. Sport fencing is so fast these days (sabre fencers are the fastest human powered athletes over a short distance) that setting up actions with a foreseen outcome are the best way of making a hit.

I have been away at a conference on science and technology in fencing, hence the lack of posting for a while. One of the things that was mentioned is that it is thought that one of the things that allows some level of anticipation of an opponent's actions in combat sports are mirror neurons.

I must say I am stumped by the little green door and the figures in the glass though.

You need to go down to Christchurch. The little green door is the one that Alice looked through into the garden. There are figures from Alice in Wonderland in the stained glass windows of the great hall.

1698. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126364 by epeeist on February 13, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #126356 by StephenP

As surreal as wooter? I'm not sure that's possible without surgery!

Hmm, I think I would prefer a free bottle in front of me rather than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

1699. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126339 by epeeist on February 13, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #126335 by Henri Bergson

Could someone tell me how to add pictures to posts here?

There used to be a set of posting guidelines that told you how to do it, but I can't find them.

You need to include an "img" tag with the src set to the URL of the image.

1700. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126338 by epeeist on February 13, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #126327 by Quetzalcoatl

Uh oh, Epeeist's borogroves are going mimsy. Everyone stand well back!

Scoff all you like. But you have not seen the little green door, nor have you feasted under the figures in the glass.

(Cartomancer may be able to explain the above, I just wanted to see if I could be as surreal as wooter.)