"Timing is everything."

[Rough draft: ]
A phrase I recently Googled.
And today noted.

1. a. Curve Balls?, e. Connecting the Dots, l. PC [^]
2., 3.,
4. (b.s.) "perpendicular": a. Anachronism, b. Heuristic Concurrence and ...

[continued 9-22-14: To whom it may regard...]
Hot, cold, wet, dry.  Father Quido Nye[!]
Up s. c.[!] d'acronible candle schtick.

Nye: A. B.
Quido: A.  Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?) , B.
Facebook Town Hall (amended) , C., D., E.  2 Reid's later? , F. Missing M-bed , G. Wise Crack , H.  REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!] , I.  A Funny Thing Happened... , J. Dog Days, Raven Nights?, K. Darned if you do, darned if you don't..., L. Frank Knight , M. The Challenge? , N. Off Track Betting , O. "Can't Get There From Here" , P. McCain camp sexist. , Q. Stranger than Science (Fiction) [?]
Father: A., B. Rat Races Van Mices?, C. Pink Floyd,

The Ge Oh Metrics? 

The thing about timing(TIME) is that there is more than one perspective on its definition. Not to be ironically reflective by taking time from timing, but that may cover an aspect of it.  Maybe scratch or reboot this.  The forth(`) dimention(^) is the stick.  Not to men shun the Three Amigoes.

Re: 4th Dimention

(^) Arthur Young(sic)
(`) my psych [?]

[This has become a rather hard draft but(~) speaking of timing (dot,dot,dot)?]
(~) A., B., C. D., E., F. (buh dump ump  : d. Para-model) Now that is Gravy~ Toss~ [!] ~OW[!]
~  \\  BLANK NETWORK, ~ [<\\>]  a.,b., c.Wittgenstein
Gray V~: a., b. Re-Mix, c.Anachronism, d.Loose Threads, e., f. Divide to conquer?, g. 13 and a half men?  h. A Plea to Congress
[!] OW almost litter ally! Actually I just flipped open the hard copy and landed on the strip.

Speculative Physics

Math is next to Godliness? ^
Or sixth sense?

Not just^ another Sunday ! ?

(Not that Socrates is alive[!])

[eff'notes: As of this time there are four lines above. Links inserted line 3, then 4, then 2.  Not to force or farce the model, but there is an event horizon.]

[ seg weigh ? ... is tough to track down ... ? ]

1-27-14  Not that I had any* mocumentary intent. But there was the Pro Bowl with intent to do something different and I had run across a YouTube on a different singularity.  Note that** my "sixth sense" is reference to the six edges of a tetrahedron which has four points.^^  My point of departure or parsing is that we may have a chicken and egg, not to mention crossing the road and sky dilemma.  While the singularities of Chomski and Hawking are different, that does not mean that we dismiss clause wits [!][?] ***

 

* Caging Godzillas 
^ or amer mots? French for "bitter words"
** further tangents?  (math and intelligence)
^^ at this point I will note that I have still to read three:
It's About Blackmail, Not National Security
Get Ready for Rand Paul
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All
Related ?




*** Our Hierarchy of Needs

[OW ? ! ? ? ]
And the past four ?
Foot notes ?
Not that there is anything in HeyDigger[!] butt ... ? [!] ?

^quote is my creation (recent search and non-related googles).

A Tail of Caution

Not that I intend to wag the dog,
but doggin' the wags? (fn)

I will let U SC [!]**

On a more mundane line, or mudlane^ nine...
I reference the "hack list" per se not the characters or authors. *

Bazinga!  It's a culture thing !
Knot so Random Guy!

How'zabout Smith Zoning Limits?
ven under draft: (Hobbes~Locke~Newton~Liebniz~  ?Swift)

My mocumentary* was not intent on this Web of Charlotte or EB' n flo ...
I stepped in it. ^

"Never let...
 

...a good caption go to Hegel?
a good crisis go to waste."

* "~"
^  '~'
 ~   = alternate reference/legend 2b evolved
i.e. anachronistic or non linear notations.

**/(fn) irony:
(1) deja vu?  
(2)  alter wing?
(3) alter hacks
(4) nature calls? (FP)

Bury the lede?

Or bury the hatchet?(1)

To be cautious, I am speaking of journalism and myth.  To be clear, I have not finished viewing the latter, but the former is certainly an example of Popperism and both contain quilting.**  



Facebook Being Liberal

FYI wars?

(1) YouTubes: [Social Darwinism 1] counterexample? [Bill Gates...Alex Jones]
c. Too Random... / A Tale of Two Manicheans.
d. The Hegel Myth and Its Method
e.^ Proxymoron? / Social Darwinism? / Social Darwinism 2.0[!] / Catch-44 / Pink Floyd / (FP) / Di-Spencer With... /  (FP)  / Battle of Amendments? /  Now the Un-Voodoo Math / Un-Social Darwinism. / The Daily Counter Balance / Where everyone needs to read... / "a royal huff" / Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

[Label check*, with all the irony of the History Channel.]

* Social Darwinism label as of this date: Bury the lede? / Kant we get along... / 2 Reid's later? / Di-Spencer With...
^ the un-quilting of Social Darwinism
un-related?
** quilting: Ctrl F "quilt"
[Re:genre?] HA !

CU T-party

By Buy[!]

Not just to be cute, but a recent poll shows the public priorities are Jobs over Cuts in spending,
as suggested by Ryan Grimm in the Job #1 segment of Rev. Al Sharpton's MSNBC show*.

Sea-U Later.
This almost makes a documentary of a mocumentary. There was the "domino theory" and "love it or leave it"... but Vietnam and Outsourcing have put a whole new spin on such slogans. I think that Water World and the Pacific Gyre would just about unspin and recreate the Libertarian Elba.

*(7 to 8 minute mark)
[Note that the narrative holds.]

[Inserted between comments 1 & 2:Retracing the anachronism of this post...the original inspirations was a mixed label/metaphor(yet to be found), that morphs the party of cuts, with the T-Party.
(Inserted post comment 2)Let alone the QE2 pun and the Hayek/Keynes Canard lines or anchors. Post c3- Or Bouts.]

Earlier Rant or Ramble (and back)

Better to flip-flop than to completely flip or flop.

Judge and re-judge thyself,
lest thee be Re-judged and De-judged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The links were added as after thoughts, or post script. I now find a core theme for these seemingly out of the blue thoughts. Bold inserted hypocrisy -(?) and thanks to GoLeft.TV below.)

Compelled* or expelled ** for flip-flop, my point is that it turns on politics.

*to go on... stated plainly flip-flop is explained by nuances and if nuance is not applied will be hypocrisy or just flip-flop. Long story short: Nuance is just flip-flop, while flip-flop can be just hypocrisy. But justice is not just _ _ _ _ ! (fill-in or leave blank)

But underlying this duality, is that politics is not a dirty word! No more than is power or money, but it is about having a choice and better than choosing between tyranny and anarchy. Using it or loosing it may have bearing, but will not indicate ones bearings.

A careful look at Barack Obama's bearing, as well as his choice of words and their meaning will highlight what will be found in the dictionary under bearing(s) [especially the 8th]. There is no reference to age or marbles or balls except as in page, carriage, heritage and language, unless one digs into heraldry and a likely escutcheon but as a pilot McCain should know better and not be so touchy and defensive. Or is it just offensive?

** Mocumentary and stranger yet later and more, and surfing the net.

[5-14-08: In trying to shore up a weak link (one of the above did not connect) I found a stronger link to what started this offensive narrative(McCain claiming Hamas endorses Obaba). Stated more correctly McCain endorses Bin Laden in his argument for his bearing down on Iraq. Of course this is just a trick of words, but the emphasis is on the trick and the focus should be on the meaning, and the tack. (A midcourse correction saved me from a tactical(no technical)error with tact) Specifically of course it is about our course and the choice between A. Obama's tact and B. McCain's tack and how we deal with attacks or a tact.]

[ 5-14-08: Since this originally seemed out of the blue, here is one out of the red (nfry) to be "fair and balanced". ]

(?) 5-14-08: even I can't recall the reason for the "bold insertion" reference unless I'm lost in italics but hypocrisy is noted in the out of the red above. And now I add a spin for the ages titled E Pluribus Nixon and a note on "positive polarization" and find irony in having a bearing without a (w)hole or a shaft to spin on.

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]