Mitakuye Oyasin – all are related

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.

Chief Seattle (c.17901866)

The other morning, the Universe directed me to a recent post by my dear friend Sue Dreamwalker, entitled ‘The Web of Life ~And Death of the Old.’ Though most of its words are recycled from an earlier, 2012, post, they are precious; some things pass the test of time.

Others, however, do not, such as the po† I rattled off in response to Sue’s post:

The threads of life on Spaceship Earth
Unravelling since before my birth
Though it’s just me, I do my bit
To try to stop it going all to shit.

Me, 2022
‘Mitakuye Oyasin’ (featuring ‘Gran Canyon’ from ‘The Enchanting Sounds of North America’ by Higher Plain Drifting)

When the last tree is cut, the last river poisoned, and the last fish dead, we will discover that we can’t eat money.

Greenpeace, after ‘a Native American saying

Mitakuye Oyasin 🙏

† ‘po’: a short poem

Posted in balance, Biodiversity, Communication, Core thought | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Ricky Gervais presents an insightful view of atheism

I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.

Richard Feynman (19181988)

With thanks to Paul Handover of Learning from Dogs for pointing me to the thought-provoking piece below. (There’s also a ‘Best of Ricky Gervais on Religion #1‘ and a ‘Best of Ricky Gervais on Religion #3‘, if you want more!)

Best of Ricky Gervais on Religion #2

Ricky Gervais: In the greater scheme of things, there are probably worse things than people believing in all the different gods. It doesn’t affect me because I’m free, and liberated, and safe. But, yeah, you can still be annoyed. It’s ignorance that annoys me more than anything. I don’t want to keep going after religion because that’s only one form of this belligerent, willful… And it’s not even that: you can’t sort of help what you believe in. Most people aren’t going around thinking, “This’ll annoy people, I’m trying to oppress people’s rights”, they just think, “I believe in God, because that’s how that’s how my brain worked when I was little, and now I think, yeah, there’s probably a God.”

And most religious people aren’t crazy; it’s something else. We worry about the people who believe the bad bits in their Holy Book, as well as the good bits. Most nice people who believe in God, they can tell the difference: they cherry pick, and they know the nice bits from the bad bits. They don’t do the bad bits. And my point is: if you know the bad bits from the good bits, you don’t need the ‘holy book’, you know? You’re already a moral person.

I think it’s very important you challenge your own beliefs. I mean, that’s what science does, really: it doesn’t constantly try and prove itself right; it follows the evidence, whatever that is. In fact, it tries to prove itself wrong. It doesn’t sulk: when science thinks something and then it discovers it was right, it doesn’t sulk because it found that out, too.

This is the question I often get: people say, “Well, you’re an atheist, you’re close minded.” No, I’m not. You know, that’s a strange thing to say; I think the opposite is true. I’m going to always follow the evidence, whatever that is. And they say things like, “If someone proved to you God existed, would you believe?” Well, of course I would, by definition. In fact, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time. Scientists would celebrate. They’d run round. At the moment, we have no evidence for the existence of any god or anything supernatural. Never have. Possibly never will. But who knows, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. When someone puts forward a ‘Jar of God’, we’ll test it for its godiness, and if we find there’s anything godly in it, we’ll write it down.

I think that’s really important, and it comes back to the point we made earlier about ideas not having human rights because I think people think when we criticize religion, we’re criticizing people who are religious, which couldn’t be further from the truth because we think they’re victims too.

Richard Dawkins: Absolutely. I mean, the word ‘Islamophobia’ is all about that. People think that if you criticize Islam, you’re criticizing Muslims. Quite the contrary: they’re the primary victims of Islam.

Ricky Gervais: Well, this is the other thing; sometimes I say to Christians, “Why do you believe in that god?” And they say, “Well, it’s the only God to believe in.” But if you were born in Delhi, you wouldn’t believe in that god, probably. If you were born in Ancient Rome, you certainly wouldn’t believe in that god.

Richard Dawkins: You believe in the god of your parents and your grandparents. Most people do.

Ricky Gervais: I think so, yeah. I mean, you know, there’s conversions and many people that seek one; they window shop, thinking,
“What can you do for me? What do I have to do?Forget it.”
“What do you do? I can still smoke and drink?I’ll have that one.”

Richard Dawkins: There are people who say, “Well, I was on a quest and I tried Buddhism and it was all right, but I thought maybe I’d try again, so I tried Hinduism.”

Ricky Gervais: Yeah, “Well, which one spoke to you?” Yeah, I know. It should be irrelevant, but it isn’t because it does infringe on peoples’ liberties, certainly religion – not spirituality; you know, someone believing in God, that’s fine.

Richard Dawkins: Harmless.

Ricky Gervais: Absolutely. Doesn’t bother me at all. Religion isn’t harmless. It’s when your god starts telling you that you should kill homosexuals –

Richard Dawkins: Exactly.

Ricky Gervais: – that’s when it’s not harmless anymore.

I think religion’s greatest trick wasn’t convincing some people that there was a god who was all-powerful; it was convincing everyone else that you couldn’t ridicule that idea. It’s when you get them: I think there’d be more atheists and less faithful, if you weren’t allowed to teach anything, you weren’t allowed to mention any gods or any beliefs or atheism, right, until they were 20. I think we’d see a different pattern. The human brain, when it’s young, is a sponge. It has to be. It has to take in all the information; it has to trust its parents, its elders, to survive. Without question.
“Don’t touch the fire.” “Why not?”
“Don’t go near the cliff. Don’t go near the wolf. Don’t touch that spider with a red dot, don’t touch that.” “Why not?” “Just don’t!”
“There is a God.” “What?” “There is a God, and if you’re bad, you’ll go to Hell, OK?”
And if that’s constantly confirmed, like all the other things, wolves eat you, black widows kill you, fires burn you; if it’s given that same level of credence and truth, you’re never going to get over it. It’s going to be a lot harder to undo that.

I think the myths came up, you know, often as a stopgap to knowledge until we find out more, you know: “The Earth is flat, and now we’ve proven that, OK, the Earth’s not flat, we were wrong.” OK? But that’s not personal; you don’t take that personally. It doesn’t affect you; it doesn’t affect your afterlife, you know? And so, they often want to hold on to that, but only because of the way they’ve been conditioned. We know it’s fun to tell children there’s a Santa Claus, and there’s fairies at the bottom of the garden, and all these cute things. It’s cute till they’re seven or eight. If they’re thirty-four, it’s a bit embarrassing, socially.
“This is my son.”
“What’s he doing?”
“He’s looking for fairies.”
“Is he? OK, we’d better leave.”

If you’re born in India, you’re probably a Hindu. If you’re born in America, you’re probably a Christian. If you’re born in Pakistan, you’re probably a Muslim. That’s a coincidence, isn’t it, that you’re always born into the right god? Always. Isn’t that lucky? “I was born into The Right God. All those others are going to Hell, but I was born into The Right Religion. I’m going to Heaven.”

It’s strange that we hold on to these sort of medieval beliefs. You know, “Where did the universe come from?” “God made it.” Which doesn’t solve the problem for me because we straight away say, “Well, who made god?” and if they say, “Well, he’s always been around.” “Well, let’s just say, the universe has, then.” Let’s just cut out the middleman: it saves time.

Yes, if we accept that we don’t know if it’s a default, we don’t know. No one’s come back from heaven. No one’s proved it. You can’t prove the non-existence of something. And why would you? If the periodic table of non-existent things is infinite, you know, it’s like… So, if we accept that, that’s a knowledge, that’s a category of knowledge. But if you just say, “What do you believe?” Yeah, you have to step up to the plate, you have to say what you believe. And if you don’t believe in any god, you’re an atheist. That’s the other misconception: people think that atheism is denying the existence of god. It’s not: it’s just not accepting the claim that there is a god.

Richard Wiseman: But if there were three doors, which are ‘god exists’, ‘god doesn’t exist’, ‘I don’t know’…

Ricky Gervais: That doesn’t make sense.

Richard Wiseman: There’s three doors: it says ‘god exists’, ‘it doesn’t exist’, ‘I don’t know’…

Ricky Gervais: But you not knowing is irrelevant to whether there is or isn’t a god. Again, you’ve done a sleight-of-hand there on a category mistake because one is knowledge and two are beliefs, right?

Richard Wiseman: I haven’t even finished my question!

Ricky Gervais: No. What? No, no. I’m saying, ‘three’ is always there. If you had to choose one, it’s: ‘I believe there’s a god’, ‘I don’t believe there’s a god’… ‘I don’t know’ is irrelevant then, isn’t it?

I think they have to lump us in with, you know, agnostics, which again, I keep trying to explain that on Twitter that they’re not mutually exclusive; you know, one deals with knowledge, one deals with belief. And so, people say on Twitter, to me, “It’s illogical to be an atheist, you should be agnostic.” And I say, “Well, I am, I am – as well.”

Richard Wiseman: Don’t agnostics get on your nerves a bit?

Ricky Gervais: Well, no, because we’re all agnostic, aren’t we? We’re all agnostic by definition. If we accept that no one knows knowledge, I’m being very diplomatic here, but if we accept that no one knows that there’s a god or not, we might be wrong; we’re 99% sure. But let’s say we don’t know: we’re all agnostic. So, take it out, it doesn’t matter. Now we ask about belief: “What do you believe? What’s your best bet?”

Richard Wiseman: But when someone says they’re agnostic, isn’t it sort of tempting to go, “Why don’t you just think about it a bit more then?”

Ricky Gervais: Yes, but there’s a category mistake. Some people do do it because they don’t want to say they believe in God, you know, but you shouldn’t ask an agnostic if there’s a god or not, you should ask them, “Do you believe there’s a God or not?” Because then they can’t say, “I don’t know”, because that doesn’t make sense: “What, you mean you don’t know whether you believe or not?” Right?

The transcript above was made with the help of Sonix, which did most of the donkey work for a tiny fee (I did have to spend some time tidying it up). Note that I do not have the copyright owner’s permission to publish this transcript here. I’ve investigated the copyright rules regarding transcriptions (more about that here), and one thing I’ve learned is that it’s no defence to make a disclaimer like “these aren’t my words, no copyright infringement intended.” However, I offer the transcription here as a service to society (especially the deaf community). I do hope the copyright owner won’t object. And I hope that you find this video as interesting as I did.

Posted in Core thought, People, perception, Phlyarology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Who is winning the war in Ukraine?

by Dr Bob Rich

It is not Russia.

It is not Ukraine.

It is what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex.

In my childhood, my grandmother was the source of all wisdom. One of her sayings was “Every fight starts by you hitting back.” The Ukrainian war is a perfect example.

For decades, NATO has been pushing east. Several countries that used to be in the Soviet sphere of influence are now part of NATO. As the West pushed east, guess what, the rulers of Russia felt threatened.

If you were a weapons manufacturer, you would find this good for business.

Suppose that the pressure had been for the establishment of a buffer: for previous Soviet colonies to become neutral, thus reducing the possibility of conflict. This would have been very good for the people in those countries. It would have been good for Russia, and good for western Europe.

It would have been terrible for the military-industrial complex. OK, they have managed to do very nicely in other parts of the world, thank you, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, but it would have been such a loss of profit if Europe grew to be permanently peaceful!

In my Ehvelen books, there is a fictional country, Aregia. The Areg were traders. One of their proverbs was “War is wealth.” They are still around by a different name, and they are laughing.

Now that Putin has snapped under the pressure, we have no choice: Ukraine MUST be supported. If Putin had won there without much trouble, he would not have stopped, and that would have been a signal to the Chinese that they could take Taiwan (which has been another source of lovely profit to the Areg). Right now, the people of Ukraine are suffering, and need every bit of aid and help they can get. Russian soldiers and those who love them back home are suffering too. I hurt inside when I listen to the news, but also, I get angry at people who discuss it like it was a football game.

But “that’s all right,” because:

Business is business, and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know!

Dr Seuss, ‘The Lorax

If you would like to be a contributor to ‘Wibble’,
please visit Creating content collaboratively.

Posted in Business, collaboration, Core thought, News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 24 Comments

How to use Styles in Microsoft Word (and why you should)

by Dr Bob Rich

Word is the most commonly used word processor program, and yet many people have difficulties with its basic features. A very experienced writer in a group I belong to complained that he hates having to put a leading tab for each paragraph, and this is one of the reasons he hates Word.

When I am editing, I often need to rap my client gently on the knuckles for doing just that. It is asking for errors of omission. And actually, Word has a simple-to-use tool for having a first-line indent where you want one, and not where you don’t. This tool is its collection of Styles.

Rather than type up a mini-instruction manual in a group, I thought I’d make it more generally available through a post.

Every version of Word has a Format menu up the top. It has a ‘Font…’ entry. Study the changes it can make. They will apply to highlighted text, or the next thing you write beyond the location of the cursor.

Below this is ‘Paragraph…’ which applies to the current paragraph (regardless of where the cursor is in it), or to a selection containing multiple paragraphs. One of the items there is ‘Special’, which refers to first-line indent. There, you can specify how far in from the left edge this paragraph or set of paragraphs is indented.

Instead of doing things in bits and pieces like this, you can – no, no, no, you should, or even must – rely on a very elegant tool of Word and other modern word processors: the ‘Style’ feature.

Every paragraph is in a particular Style. For plain text this will be ‘Normal’ or ‘Body text’. A great thing is to have a Style specified for special uses like headings, subheadings and chapter titles. You can even make up your own Style.

So, click on ‘Style…’; you will get a dialog box with a list of style names on the left. The Style your current paragraph is using will be highlighted. The font, font size, paragraph alignment and other relevant facts of this Style are displayed in the main part.

Three important buttons are ‘New…’, ‘Modify…’ and ‘Organizer…’.

New

Clicking on this thingummy allows you to – surprise – create a new style. You can give it whatever name you want, and initially it will be a identical twin of the one you are starting from. Then you can modify it, so hold your breath and read on!

Modify

Guess what, this means changing the formatting of the Style. Directly from this box, you can alter:

  • The font you are using.
  • Font size.
  • Whether you want everything written in this Style to be plain text, or bold, or italics, or both bold and italics.
  • The next whatsit in my version of Word is mysterious: labelled ‘Automatic’. Clicking on it reveals the secret: you can specify a particular colour for your letters.
  • The line below refers to paragraph formatting, allowing:
    • positioning the paragraph left-aligned, centred, or justified (left-aligned with the right margin forced to be straight)
    • definition of the spacing between lines; you can have single, 1.5 or double spacing
    • definition of the amount of spacing between paragraphs
    • choice of paragraph indentation: you can shove the entire paragraph farther from or closer to the left margin

Now comes the deep and hidden secret. A tab at the bottom is ‘Format…’. Clicking it allows changes to all these, and many more. Selecting Font or Paragraph allows all the manipulations you can now impose locally, but they will apply whenever you are writing in this Style.

Two other useful features you can access are Language and Shortcut Key. So, if you are using different versions of English from time to time, you can have one Style in English US, another otherwise identical Style English UK, etc. The shortcut key allows you to specify a quick way of changing Styles. For example, I have specified Control+Shift+d for a dot-point list.

Heading styles are particularly useful for, guess what, headings. You can use them to construct an automatic table of contents. In ‘Outline View’ (accessed at the bottom of the screen). You can count the number of words in a section/ chapter, move them around, and inspect features like the number of spaces before a heading.

So there you have it. No more leading tabs!

Finally, there is:

Organizer

(I do wish American English would stop its addiction to Z!)

This allows you to copy one or more Styles from one document to another. This can be useful if someone sends you a document that looks yuk. Copy the Styles from one of yours, and it will look the same.


If you would like to be a contributor to ‘Wibble’,
please visit Creating content collaboratively.

Posted in collaboration, Communication, Computers and Internet, Education, Tech tips | Tagged , | 13 Comments

Illustrating exponential growth using movement towards a target

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Professor Albert Bartlett (19232013)

Ever since I first encountered this quote (in Professor Bartlett’s seminal lecture ‘Arithmetic, population and energy‘) I’ve been trying to think of ways of highlighting the problem, hoping that, in some small way, I might contribute to finding a solution. Examples of my humble offerings include ‘Bacteria in Bottles‘ (from that lecture), various attempts to publicise the ‘Impossible Hamster‘ video, and a kind of imagination exercise. I’m revisiting that last here, as I think I can do better.

… this one was just 15 paces farther on.

This is the white gate I referred to in my post four years ago (‘Understanding the exponential function‘), and, for completeness, here’s what I said in that:

Imagine you’re walking along a path through a field.  Ahead of you, in the distance, is a white gate.

Now, pause, hold up one hand, and frame the gate between your fingers.

It’s tiny, right?

Far too small to get through! :)

As you continue to walk through the field towards the gate, at a steady pace, the gate appears to get larger and larger. But, more than this, the rate at which it gets larger accelerates, even though you’re not moving any faster. As you walk towards it, the gate gets bigger and bigger until, when you’re about ten paces from it, it suddenly begins to zoom in your field of view until… it’s plenty large enough to get through.

That, in a nutshell, is the exponential function in action.

With thanks to Brendan Leonard (@semi_rad)
for his kind permission for me to use
the image in the header.

Posted in ... wait, what?, Communication, Core thought, Education, GCD: Global climate disruption, People, perception, Phlyarology | Tagged , , , | 41 Comments

Misplaced Priorities

A good rant here from Jill; it’s right on the nose. I believe that that the problem is twofold: perverted greed and lust for power by the elites who pull the strings, and cognitive dissonance on the part of the unthinking masses, whose minds refuse to acknowledge anything that might disturb their view of reality and ‘normality’.

Of course the former cynically manipulate the latter. It’s been going on for decades, and I don’t see how any great awakening (particularly in the light of the hijacking of the simple word ‘woke’) can possibly happen in time to turn this ‘unsinkable’ Titanic before it hits the iceberg. (My post ‘Illustrating exponential growth using movement towards a target‘ scheduled for later today is on that very theme….)

Filosofa's Word

The effects of climate change are predicted to bring us our hottest summer ever and one with even more hurricanes, tornadoes, and extreme wildfires than past years. We are told that we should expect rolling electricity ‘blackouts’ this summer as power companies try to protect the electric grid from damage due to overuse.  We have become a nation known for its mass shootings, known for people who carry a gun into churches, schools, and grocery stores just looking for trouble – we are not safe shopping for food, and our children are no longer safe in school.  There is a war in Ukraine (just in case you’ve forgotten) that is likely to expand into other nations and may well ultimately involve the U.S.  Our voting rights are being stripped, states are passing ridiculous laws to deny women of their rights and children of the right to learn those things they…

View original post 676 more words

Posted in balance, Core thought, Environment, GCD: Global climate disruption, perception, Phlyarology, Rants, Reblogs | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

How brexit is turning the UK into a haven…for human rights abuse

Further indications that the world is going (has gone) completely mad:

daryanenergyblog

One of the main motivations for brexit was to tackle immigration. However, even before the referendum, it was pointed out to the brexiters, that their plans would be unworkable and counter productive. Job markets are fairly complicated and restricting migrant can led to labour shortages, slowing down economic growth, which can reduce the number of jobs available to locals. There would, for example, be little benefit in being able to catch more fish in UK waters. As the bulk of the UK’s fishing quota’s are held by a handful of very wealthy families.And the UK lacks the fishermen to crew these extra boats. Plus, without single market membership, no European market to export the fish into (while equally making it harder to import in the fish types the British prefer to eat).

The only way these worker shortages could be avoided would be by using agencies to…

View original post 1,402 more words

Posted in ... wait, what?, News and politics, Phlyarology, Reblogs | Tagged | 1 Comment

Holy Zarquon’s singing fish!

For those who missed it on Towel Day: here’s a second bite of The Eclectic cherry!

On 29May2022† my eBook is (again) available totally FREE!

Just click on this link right here to get it.

If you don’t have a Kindle,
don’t worry, you can use
the Kindle app
or
Kindle for PC

Enjoy!

If you feel that you owe me something (you don’t),
could I ask you please for a review on amazon and/or goodreads?

Reviews of ‘The Eclectic’

If your sense of humour is like mine, you will roar with laughter at some of these gems. The Eclectic is a collection of poems and short stories that take a gentle but firm poke at reality. For example, the trickle-down effect is examined in a goblet-shaped poem, which correctly identifies the main reason our world is in trouble. One hilarious story tells you exactly what had happened to the Titanic, and why. Or you might be interested in the REAL story of King Arthur. I can recommend the productions of a delightfully twisted mind.

Bob Rich on Goodreads 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠

After you read this wonderful collection of stories, poems and dreams, you will be asking this incredibly original deep thinker to put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) without delay! Fantastic stuff!

Rick on amazon 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠


(If you should happen to land on this page on some other day,
leave a comment below or contact me
and I’ll schedule another free day, just for you!)



† The small print: 00:00 to 23:59 Pacific Time – check here for your time zone!

Posted in ... wait, what?, Fantasy, Phlyarology, Science Fiction | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Protected: Towel Day 2022 Quiz Answers (see clues in the 2020 quiz for the password)

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Just for laughs, Phlyarology, Science Fiction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Enter your password to view comments.

Happy Towel Day 2022!

Following on from the Hitchhiker’s Guide Trivia Quizzes I did for Towel Day 2020 and 2021, here’s another to celebrate Towel Day, 25May2022!

The answers will be published later on today (at 22:10:10 UTC) in a password-protected post (here). You can find clues to the password by reading the four posts in the 2020 quiz.

Q1: How long did it take for the ‘B’ ark to make the journey from Golgafrincham to Earth?

Q2: What family relationship is Zaphod to Ford?

Q3: For what serious offense do they tend to lock you away in some planet’s stone age and tell you to evolve into a more responsible lifeform?

Q4: What, according to a poll in Playbeing Magazine, is the hippest place in the galaxy?

Q5: What is Lintilla’s profession?

Q6: When Zaphod slips in the cold and mysterious cave, what expression does he use?

Q7: How many of his audience died of internal haemorrhaging when Grunthos the Flatulent recited his poem “Ode to a small lump of green putty I found in my armpit one midsummer morning”?

Q8: From which planet did Zaphod Beebrox originate?

Q9: How do Ford and Arthur cope with being stranded on prehistoric Earth?

Q10: How late was the Trans-stellar Spacelines ship that Ford and Zaphod find in the derelict spaceport?

Q11: When thinking of ways to describe what Zaphod is making of his life, what phrase tends to spring to the mind of Zaphod’s great grandfather?

Q12: What can you stick in your ear to instantly understand anything in any form of language?

Q13: Who writes poetry to throw his mean, callous, heartless exterior into sharp relief?

Q14: What degrees does Trillian hold?

Q15: What, in the local language, do the protruding upper halves of the motto of the Syrius Cybernetics Complaints Division read?

Q16: Through what three phases does every major galactic civilization pass?

Q17: Which three words are given as examples of those now acceptable in common usage?

Q18: Where was Arthur Dent’s house?

Q19: Which Shakespearean play did the infinite number of monkeys come up with?

Q20: How many small black ships come to visit The Man in the Shack?

Q21: The Haggunenons of Vicissitus III will quite frequently evolve several times over lunch. Why might one evolve into something with long arms that’s incapable of drinking coffee?

Q22: In which sector of open space did the Heart of Gold pick up Arthur and Ford?

Q23: What two names does the captain of the Arcturan megafreighter use to acknowledge the messages from traffic control on the approach to Ursa Minor Beta?

Q24: What is Zaphod’s solution to the situation in which the Vogons attack the Heart of Gold?

Q25: What colour are Lintilla’s little Evening Class pills?

Q26: How long was Ford Prefect on the Earth (the first time around)?

Q27: Who came up with the theory that somewhere there was a planet entirely given over to biro life forms?

Q28: What is the title of the compendious tome by Werdle Sneng, which is far too large to carry but sits magnificently on fashionable coffee tables?

Q29: What is small, yellow, leech-like and probably the oddest thing in the universe?

Q30: What, according to Zaphod, are the chances of falling onto a swutting big bird?

Q31: According to an ancient Arcturan proverb, at what speed does the soul travel?

Q32: Use of what device causes Lintilla to run even though nobody is pursuing?

Q33: Did Arthur Dent’s dog get brushed on the Thursday the Earth was demolished?

Q34: Where did Trillian learn the technique of ‘splitting the flight path tangentially across the summit vector of 9GX78 with a five degree inertial correction’?

Q35: How does Deep Thought describe the Milliard Gargantubrain at Maximegalon?

Q36: What was the fate of the Golgafrinchans who weren’t on the ‘B’ ark?

Q37: When Arthur and Ford find themselves back on Earth before it was destroyed, how far in the past are they?

Q38: How many tourists visit Bethselamin every year?

Q39: How does the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation define a robot?

Q40: What caused Arthur Dent’s words to spark a war between the Vl’hurgs and the G’Gugvuntts?

Q41: What has experience shown to be the most effective way of dealing with any Haggunenon you may meet?

Q42: The computer known as the Earth was destroyed before it was able to determine the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. How long before?

Post your score in the comments :)

Share and enjoy!

Posted in Just for laughs, Phlyarology, Science Fiction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments