Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus 739
An anonymous reader writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, which published the results of their very thorough investigation today, turned out to be right. Linus really isn't the father of the Linux operating system. After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'"
Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Fathers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fathers? (Score:5, Funny)
What about Al? (Score:4, Funny)
Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dishonest list? (Score:3, Offtopic)
What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. T
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Informative)
From an interview in the November 1999 Linux Journal magazine:
Margie: How about religion?
Linus: Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:3, Funny)
There's only one real way of explaining it well... [recovery.org]
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:3, Informative)
Agnosticism: We are incapable of knowing whether or not God exists
"hard" atheism: God does not exist
"soft" atheism: There is insufficient evidence to believe in God, or belief in God is irrational.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the realm of unicorns. I do think there are unicorns, but I suppose that there is a non-zero chance that there is one in the forests somewhere, magical and all. After all, we cannot disprove it since we can argue that magic keeps it hidden.
Does that make me unicorn-agnostic, or unicorn-athiest, so to speak.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Funny)
"I think there probably is a unicorn, though we can't see it." - unicornist
"I'm not sure if there is a unicorn, since it might be hidden." - unicorn-agnostic
"I think there aren't any unicorns, otherwise we would have seen one." weak-unicorn-atheist
"It's impossible for something to exist and be absolutely undetectable, so unicorns are a logical impossibility."[*] strong-unicorn-atheist
([*] i'm not necessarily making this argument; it's just an example)
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is NOT as, alot of religious folk like to pretend "a belief that there is no God", and nor would such a belief be hypocritical, as is often claimed. If God decided to make himself known obviously (desecend from the heavens on shining lightbeams, get interviewed on E!, that sort of thing) most atheists would concede he exists.
Myself, I reserve judgment on the existence of God, although I tend toward the negative. But at least if we're talking about the God in the Christian bible, I wouldn't worship whether I knew he existed or not.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point, an agnostic holds that the question is unanswerable, or at least unanswered. While you are quite correct in saying that ultimately there are only two options (theism and athiesm) the agnostic doesn't fall into either camp. It is possible, of course, to be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic athiest, but it
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Informative)
I have never seen it used in the sense of opposite to "agnostic" and OED only saw it once a long time ago.
Re:Non-religious morality (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if there is no God, you cannot feel awe for the amazing complexity and (perceived) efficiency? I'm atheist, but am still amazed by things, even though they are perfectly natural. Even when I understand the theory behind why a lightbulb works, I am still amazed that it does (when I choose to be mindful of such things). Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.
In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Scienc
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again:
If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.
For example, in the
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
All I can say is: Go back and read the original post, and respond to what it said, not what you thought it said. The original poster deliberately did not suggest that it's religion's job to ask questions like "why".
I love the Weinberg quote, BTW.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.
For exa
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Funny)
The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof.
Tell you what. How about you go look up "axiom".
Did someone say "intellectually lazy"?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a tenet in Judeo-Christian belief that God exists, created the universe, and loves all humans. It cannot be tested, and is therefore an axiom for those religions. The single biggest issue, however, is not if there is a God, but who is God.
The majority of people with a higher education believe in some God. Those with an education in science may follow the tendancy to not believe that there is a higher being, but they are definitely not the majority. The highest form of thought, philosophy, and the majority of philosophers out there have established that there is or was a God. There are the few that pointedly disbelieve, but if you really examine those philosophers, they in themselves are supporting themselves as Gods.
In the end, it comes down to whether or not you believe that someone can affect your destiny and situation in life, what you experience exists or is a delusion, and whether or not it is because you experience it, or because you believe it. On the one hand, you have empiricism, which basically states that man is the measure (and measurer) of all things. On the other, you have Platonism, Kantian belief, Spinozan belief, Christian belief, and a sleiu of others.
Religion is not a matter of logic. You cannot prove that faith is logical or not. You might as well prove to me that the color that you call green is the same exact color that I experience and call green. You can't. If you state it as so, you'd be "begging the question." The point is that with religion, it is an a priori belief, something that has to be accepted as true, even though it cannot be proven true.
Logic is the invention of man, which helps man to become the center of his own universe. If man can look at it and prove it, then man has mastered and understood it. Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to, with man being God. There really is nothing more to it.
It doesn't matter "how" or "why." What matters is what is . Do you have faith in God? If so, what God do you have faith in?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, to make your theorem the negation of my statement "God exists", my statement also has to be a theorem. Look up the rules of formal logic if you don't believe me - the opposite of an Axiom is another Axiom, and the method of disproving an Axiom is fundamentally different from disproving a Theorem. You prove your view is right, but only by redefining my view so that you can claim a universal negation of my axiom can somehow be a theorem. You also either offer a theorem without being willing or able to show a derivation, by claiming the burden of proof falls on me instead, and require me to prove an Axiom by means which only work for theorems, or alternately, you yourself believe in the non-existence of God as one of your fundamental Axioms, which means you too are begging the question by your own definition.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are acceptable (unverifiable) axioms. One might equally well assume that God hates all humans.
The problem comes in the conclusions that people try to derive from them ("eat fish on fridays", "no gay marriage"), and that they forget that they are only arbitrary assumptions.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Choose any two.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.
A rational being
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3)
I wasn't making a claim about christians from personal anecdotal data. I successfully refuted my parent post's claim
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.
The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.
In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.
And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.
You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.
You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.
When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.
Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists
I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is a God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of hell?
Seriously, if your only concept of right and wrong is based on the threat of punishment, whether by the State or by some deity, then you have real problems.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"
There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.
Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.
If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"
How do you know that you're existing?
That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.
In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.
It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president [christianitytoday.com]; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific theories are built up from base principles. If we forgot everything we know back to the stone age, man would eventually figure out the speed of light, gravitation, etc. Evidence + time + observation = truth.
Religion only works if you get the whole book at once, or at least in big chunks. You can't build it up from base principles... you can't build it up at all, you either believe or burn.
Since t
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy [skepdic.com].
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.
Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...] (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the best ones. Like Stanford's Donald Knuth [stanford.edu], for example.
Or take the case of Reverend Thomas Bayes, the parish priest who discovered Bayes' theorem, on which modern machine learning/data mining relies so heavily, including spam filters named after him.
Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair... (Score:5, Informative)
What do such people believe in, though? (Score:4, Interesting)
When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox. I suspect these people may have reached a personal understanding of the divine that would not be accepted by their respective communities. The ignorance of the lay community is a good thing, in this case, because the exact nature of their belief is not relevant to anything. The fact is they believe, and it provides a framework in which they can act in and upon the world.
I also suspect that the higher levels of theological scholars, pantheistically speaking, are far more tolerant of objective truth than most believe they are...
===---===
The corporate mods! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, Knuth is an absolutely wonderful computer scientist, so clearly religion goes either way.
Bad Name - as usual (Score:3, Interesting)
A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".
And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred C
Re:Bad Name - as usual (Score:4, Funny)
Sacred Cows make the best hamburgers.
Re:Bad Name - as usual (Score:3, Informative)
I think the actual definition is someone who believes there is no god. Compare to theist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc. Someone who does not know if there is a god or not is an agnostic - he professes no knowledge about the existence of a god.
Still, none of these words convey a sense of how evangelistic the believer is concerning hi
Re:Bad Name - as usual (Score:5, Funny)
the word you are looking for is "agnostic" (Score:3, Informative)
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God
Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.
There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness
What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that
Simon
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ? They are ALL paid shills. Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner, and Dion Cornett comes out of the red corner. Each one has an agenda. Each one has paid "opinions" Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ? It's like my beloved NY Post. I like reading it, but take everything with a grain of salt
I've worked as a consulatant (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, "hired guns" are mercenaries - they will do as you wish, when you wish, how you wish. The AdTI are hired guns. Some of us (the others
Simon.
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
Were they ever? I seem to remember that, like, the very first time I ever saw AdTI mentioned on Slashdot the response was "yeah, this isn't a threat, these people have been around awhile, they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway".
They don't seem to have much o
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:4, Funny)
How long has it been a serious news source?
SCO = Santa Claus Operation? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation? (Score:4, Funny)
d'oh (Score:4, Funny)
SCO Claims they created Linux and sues itself. Happy day.
It makes sense... (Score:5, Funny)
not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...
all hail Linus (Score:4, Funny)
Re:all hail Linus (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't be sickened by this comment if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...
Linus first step in creating linux (Score:5, Funny)
20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
Name (sco:admin): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
ftp> prompt
Interactive mode off.
ftp> mget *
And I thought... (Score:4, Funny)
"Linux, I am your father!"
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The flaw in this argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
But remember folks,
Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!
Oh wait.
--LP
P.S. I'd be nervous if the press release said AdTI president and pundit Kenneth Brown was tracing the code... but it says he "traces the free software movement over three decades". Hrm, good luck there, Ken!
Re:The flaw in this argument... (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair: Both Microsoft and Apple copied Xerox.
You can read [amazon.com] the story of how Xerox invited a number of companies (including Apple) to port Smalltalk to various hardware platforms. This exercise led directly to the Apple Lisa (the "Mother of All Macs"). No, they were not based on Smalltalk, but this introduced the WIMP metaphor to Apple.
mod DOWN the duplicate post Posters (Score:5, Informative)
Article Text: LW Slashdotted already
LinuxWorld Exclusive: Linus Torvalds Makes Startling Admission, Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux May 17, 2004 Summary As only Linus Torvalds can, the undisputed - except by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute - inventor of Linux has as promised let LinuxWorld have his immediate comment on the AdTI's president's claims this morning that the parentage of Linux is in doubt. Read his startling admission exclusively here.
"Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus."
Good! (Score:3, Funny)
what they will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what they will say (Score:3, Funny)
AdTI: OMG! Linus didn't write Linux!
Re:what they will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The original "study" is correct in that Linus didn't invent very much at all, but they fail to acknowledge that this is completely beside the point. Linus constructed the Linux kernel from scratch. Like all people who progress humanity, he only did so by standing on the shoulders of giants.
For what it's worth, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, either, but even decades later, we'd hardly accuse him of theft. Moreover, he built cars that existing drivers would already know how to drive by making them look like the cars that were there beforehand.
The situation is similar to what Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics refers to as "the semi-attached figure". If you can't prove something, prove something else and pretend they're the same. So, for example, you say your toilet cleaner "kills germs faster" and strongly imply, though never right-out say, that this has something to do with your family's health even though it probably doesn't.
Worst of all, this kind of thinking completely ignores how human progress happens. It's the myth of the genius all over again. Progress happens on the fringes of what we already have. When you get down to it, every work is a derivative work (except in the legal sense of the term). Einstein couldn't have come up with the idea of relativity without centuries of work by smart physicists and mathematicians before him.
Hell, Unix is just a castrated version of Multics, right?
Finally some truth from ADTI... (Score:5, Funny)
Horrible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Horrible! (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope you never see the Listerine Tooth Fairy advert. I can't seem to find a picture, but imagine a 'dodgy geezer' tooth fairy from London.
Re:Horrible! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Horrible! (Score:5, Funny)
Just be glad it's only under your pillow...
Re:Horrible! (Score:4, Funny)
(Neal Page)Those aren't pillows!!!!(/Neal Page)
Linus key quote and hackers. (Score:3, Interesting)
Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.
I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.
Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?
Or is it really unintentional?
Linus
WHOIS of ADTI.NET says...
Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.
Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.
Re:Linus key quote and hackers. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linus key quote and hackers. (Score:4, Informative)
Uhh... that's the timestamp for the last update of the entire
Lies, all lies! (Score:5, Funny)
But now, as Linus Torvalds insists on further disregard of the truth, my employer has become enraged and will soon begin legal action to claim his rightful place as the creater of "Linux", originally and forever known to his friends, employees, and supporters as Bunix.
Sincerely,
Bun E. Sue
Chief Counsel
Easter Bunny Inc.
......and in other news....... (Score:4, Funny)
A christmas tune for Linux - finish it (Score:3, Funny)
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
:
:
As the spokesperson (Score:4, Funny)
This is cool (Score:5, Funny)
Í like it (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.
Re:Í like it (Score:4, Funny)
ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
"At first I didn't believe it myself, but when I started humping around during easter, I knew I had to be. Besides that, I'm actually quite releaved that the news is out and I don't have to keep it to myself anymore", Alexis commented.
sig(h)
What is Tocqueville?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Breaking news from Alexis de Tocqueville Institute (Score:3, Funny)
"He can't be believed or trusted," said Ken Brown, head of the institute. "He says he has good teeth, yet the truth of the matter is that he has a mouth full of cavities. This is entirely consistent with the lies and fabrications this man has put forth since claiming he wrote Linux."
SantaClaus.com agrees ;-) (Score:4, Funny)
that must irk RMS real bad (Score:5, Funny)
And in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
According to our translator, he said "I believe Alexis de Tocqueville to have been one of the greatest Iraqis in history, and it is an honour to be serving his esteemed foundation. I believe this role to be the pinnacle of my professional career to date, even exceeding my colonisation of Mars in 1994"
Study not authored by Alexis de Tocqueville Inst. (Score:5, Funny)
adti.net on freebsd (Score:3, Informative)
Who is the ADTI ? (Score:4, Informative)
Marilyn Ketter Rittmeyer.
Interesting.
Re:Stand-up. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stand-up. (Score:3, Funny)
Because if it did, this story would have been rejected.
Re:Stand-up. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hello, McFly!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:4, Funny)
Check section "Santa Letter Writing Program" at: http://www.postescanada.ca/corporate/about/jobs/tr aditions-e.asp [postescanada.ca]
Even the german post [deutschepost.de] acknowledge this, Canada being the direct link to the North Pole. :)