[MSTed] Evolution vs. Creation [1/3]
Brian N. Pacula
MSTed by Brian N. Pacula
Disclaimer: The original posting quoted herein was written by somebody who
vehemently believes in Creationism. The person who MSTed it does not. If you
think this is the kind of thing that might really offend you, turn back now.
Unlike Mr. BillyJack, I don't want to force my opinions on people who aren't
interested in hearing it. (Pompous enough for ya?)
[part 1 of 3]
<Theme song. Let...me...dooowwwwnnn!!!>
<Theatre exodus. Whiirr, shoomp, click, etc.>
<The SOL. Mike is alone, but is Crow, Tom, and Gypsy quickly enter SL. Gypsy
has a crudely wrapped package in her mouth.>
BOTS: Mike! Mike! Mike Mike Mike! Mike!
MIKE: What, what? What is it?
CROW: Mike, look! We got you a Christmas present!
MIKE: Christmas was five months ago.
TOM: The hell it was. C'mon, open it!
MIKE: <Taking package> Well, okay...it was awfully nice of you guys to do
this...<Unwraps package. It contains a metal box with a big red button on it.>
Wow! What is it?
CROW: It's the Audiothereal Sensurrounding DigitAural Virtual Listening
Experience Environment.
TOM: It's the ultimate answer to your musical needs. Hit the button.
<Mike hits the button. The haunting strains of "Video Killed the Radio Star"
fill the Satellite of Love.>
MIKE: Wow! Well, how about that! <Pause> Isn't that something? <Pause> Does
it play anything else?
CROW: Of course! As soon as the Audiothereal Sensurrounding DigitAural Virtual
Listening Experience Environment senses that you'd like to hear another song,
it plays whatever song best complements your current mood.
<"Video Killed the Radio Star" continues to play. Louder.>
MIKE: Huh. <Long pause.> It's still playing the same song.
TOM: It sure is!
MIKE: Um... <Pause> How do you turn it off?
CROW: It shuts itself off when it senses that you no longer want to listen to
it.
MIKE: Mm-hm. <Pause> Guys, I hate to tell you, but it's not sensing what I want.
TOM: Yes, it is, Mike.
CROW: The machine knows you better than you know yourself.
MIKE: Oh. <Comm. Sign light flashes. Mike hits the button.>
<Commercials! Here are 25 reasons why I deserve a ride on a Polaris watercraft.>
<Back on the SOL. Crow and Tom are poking around looking for something. Mike
enters SR>
TOM: Say, Mike, have you seen the Audiothereal Sensurrounding DigitAural Virtual
Listening Experience Environment?
MIKE: Yep. Much as I appreciate the thought, it was driving me insane so I threw
it out the airlock. Sorry.
CROW: You did *what!?*
TOM: Boy, that's the last time we try to do something nice for *you.*
CROW: Ingrate. <Mad light flashes>
TOM: Somebody better get that.
CROW: You do it. I'm bitter. <Mike hits the button.>
<Way down in Deep 13>
CLAYTON: Ah. Mark. Cory. Tim. So nice to see you. For your experiment this
week, I've assembled a collection of the works of Stephen Ratliffe, with an
introduction by Alex Buchanan, to be preceeded by two classic shorts from
John_-_Winston.
<The SOL.>
ALL: <Bloodcurdling scream> NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
<Back to Deep 13>
CLAYTON: However, I will commute that to a lighter sentence if you agree to be
guinea pigs for a little invention I cooked up over the weekend.
<The SOL>
MIKE: Guinea pigs.
TOM: Absolutely.
CROW: No question.
<Deep 13>
CLAYTON: Very well. My invention is based on the concept of the e-mail bomb.
It's a nice way to harrass a fellow internerd, but let's face it, it just
doesn't pack much of a punch in this day and age. So, I took something good,
wholesome, and useful -- in this case, the "Eudora" e-mail client -- and
twisted it into something dark and malign. Enter, the Eunabomer. A fun
little way to make e-mail bombs a little more frightening and evil. <Clayton
goes to a small laptop computer and punches a few keys.>
<The SOL. There is now a computer on the desk.>
COMPUTER: You've got mail!
TOM: Say, how about that. Let's see here... <Tom reads the mail for a moment.
His head explodes.> Ouch.
MIKE: Huh. Nice work, Dr. Forrestor.
<Deep 13>
CLAYTON: Your experiment this week is a long, long, *long* diatribe from a very
dedicated creationist, who decided the best place to spam his manifesto would
be in the alt.sex hierarchy. Enjoy. <Pushes the button>
<The SOL>
ALL: Aaaauuuugggghhhh!!! Usenet siiiiigggnnnn!!!
<Click, shoomp, whirr, etc,>
>Path: newsbf01.news.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!news-e2a.gnn.com!
TOM: <James Earl Jones> This...is GNN.
>howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
>From: Billy...@aol.com
CROW: Any relation to Mighty Jack?
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.politics.sex,
>alt.religion.christnet,alt.sex.stories,talk.politics.guns,
>alt.personals.ads,alt.personals.fat,alt.sex.bestiality,
MIKE: Oh, I'm sure all the people on these groups are anxious to hear
what you think about evolution.
TOM: talk.origins is conspicuously absent.
>alt.politics.correct
>Subject: Evolution or Creation? You Decide :)
ALL: <Singing> They tell us that...we lost our tails...evolving up...
from little snails...
>Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 17:54:24 GMT
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 819
TOM: Oh, God, no...
MIKE: Get comfy guys, we're gonna be here awhile.
>Message-ID: <4iev3m$p...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: irv-ca9-24.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Mar 16 9:51:50 AM PST 1996
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
TOM: Forte Free Agent Super Dragon!
>Xref: newsbf01.news.aol.com alt.politics.sex:10068
>alt.sex.bondage:107841 alt.sex.stories:118299
CROW: <Jay Leno> Sex, ladies and gentlemen! Heh heh!
>talk.politics.guns:226092 alt.personals.ads:86531
>alt.personals.fat:5035 alt.sex.bestiality:30557
>alt.politics.correct:102845
>
>Creation vs. Evolution
>What is the Better Explanation?
>
TOM: <Chipper> Let's find out!
>
> Hi. My name is Bill Morgan.
CROW: ...And I'm an alcoholic.
> I am a Registered Mechanical Engineer
>and I love science and learning about science.
TOM: Science!
> I have been studying
>the Creation vs. Evolution for several years and have made this text
>file to present a clear, easy to understand case for Creation. This
>case for Creation will be built using science.
TOM: Science!!
MIKE: He's blinding us with science.
>
> Whether you are a Christian, an agnostic, or a convinced atheist, I
>feel you should check out the enclosed information on this very
>important topic. I feel every one has a right to believe whatever they
>want.
CROW: <BillyJack> But I'll impose my beliefs on them anyway.
> However, I think it is a shame that many people dismiss belief
>in God as "unscientific," or "superstitious" without ever hearing its
>case. I have taught several classes on this topic and a common
>response is:
MIKE: But Mr. BillyJack, the Learning Annex brochure said this was a
macrame class.
>
>"Why haven't I ever heard this information before?"
>
> Many people will say you never heard this information before
>because it is unscientific and has no place in science education.
TOM: They would be correct.
>Some people will say you never heard this before because the schools
>and media are biased against the conclusions that are drawn by
>presenting Creation Science.
CROW: The Liberal Media: serving your scapegoat needs since 1961.
>
> My advice is for you to decide for yourself! When I get a chance
>to teach at a college, I start off my presentation with the following:
MIKE: ...Nude interpretive dance.
>
> "Do not believe a word I am about to tell you,
CROW: <BillyJack> ...'Cause I've been tanked up on Rumple Minze since 5 AM.
> but listen to what I
>tell you, think about it, test it and then decide for yourself if you
>believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because
>someone told you to believe it, you have not been educated, you have
>been indoctrinated.
CROW: <BillyJack> Like me!
> But if a case is presented to you, and then you
>test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been
>educated. I was never encouraged to test the Theory of Evolution and
>dig into its details.
TOM: <BillyJack> Daddy didn't love me...
> But I encourage you to test the Creation model
>I am about to present. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution
>has to offer, and then you decide what to believe.
MIKE: Start by testing it against a blind rabbit or two, then work
your way up to sewer rats and eventually it should be able to take on
a good-sized rottweiler.
> I am confident
>that the scientific data convincingly supports Creation.
>Unfortunately too many people have made their conclusion on this
>subject based on emotion or peer pressure, and not the scientific
>data."
TOM: C'mon, man, everybody's believing in evolution. You don't want
everyone to think you're some kinda loser, do you?
MIKE & CROW: Conforrrrmmm...
>
> I would also like to provide to you with some free books. The
>books I will send to you are what I consider to be the best books
>regarding this subject.
MIKE: <BillyJack> They're better books because I agree with them.
> Naturally I need some kind of address.
CROW: And a credit card number, your America Online password, a small
processing fee...
> I
>promise I will not put you on any mailing list, or show up at your
>door.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Unless you want me to...?
> It will be the only time I mail anything to that address unless
>you request more mail. If you do not want to give me your address
>please e mail me or call me at (714) 898-8331
TOM: I can't *believe* this guy just gave out his phone number.
CROW: We'll go have some fun with him after the experiment is over...
> or BILLY...@AOL.COM
>and somehow we can get those books to you some other way. Perhaps
>through a school or work address.
>
>DEFINITIONS
>Creation Model: What we observe today is the result of intelligent
>design, intelligent planning and purpose.
MIKE: Famine, war, disease and cruelty are all part of God's plan.
> A designer and planner used
>means beyond the natural laws of science (supernatural). Matter,
>energy and life originated at a point in time and originated from a
>supernatural source.
CROW: Shazam!
> Plants and animals are offspring of parents of
>the same kind, they do not have a common ancestor. Plants and animals
>were created instantly. Humans were created instantly as humans as
>male and female, humans are not related to apes.
>
TOM: The creation model is also known as the "wrong" model.
MIKE: Tom, let's watch who we offend here.
TOM: What? Accepting evolution as a fact doesn't preclude a belief in
God. I mean, if you take the Bible literally then you can't eat pork,
dissing your parents is punishable by death, and you're required to
marry your sister-in-law if your brother dies.
CROW: "Dissing," Tom?
>Evolution Model: What we observe today is the result of chance events
>and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer
>behind anything in the Universe.
MIKE: <Femme> Well that is pret-ty obvious! Those nebulae don't match at
*all,* and honey, they are *totally* clashing with that galaxy.
CROW: <Femme> Keep the white dwarfs. They're kicky.
> Everything originated by way of
>natural processes subject to the natural laws of science over billions
>of years.
TOM: <Carl Sagan> Billyuns and billyuns...
> The idea of supernatural intervention is rejected. Plants
>and animals are offspring from a common ancestor.
CROW: Hey, Phil Gramm definetly has vegetable matter in his lineage. That's
all I'm saying.
> (Note: a few evolutionists say God used Evolution. When I say
>"evolutionist" in this paper, I imply people who deny God's
>existence.
MIKE: You know, evil godless communists.
> However for Theistic evolutionists, this paper intends to
>demonstrate that if God did use evolution to create, there is no
>scientific evidence that He did).
TOM: Yeah, like God and scientific evidence go hand in hand.
MIKE: Relax, honey.
>
>WITH APOLOGIES TO DAVID LETTERMAN...
CROW: Lately, I've been thinking it's *Dave* who should be apologizing
to *us.*
MIKE: Oooh, burn.
> FROM THE HOME OFFICE IN HUNTINGTON
>BEACH....HERE ARE:
TOM: ...The Von Trapp family singers!
>
>THE TOP TEN REASONS THE CREATION MODEL IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE
>ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE THAN THE
>EVOLUTION MODEL
>
>1. DESIGN
TOM: ...For Dreaming.
>
>2. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
>
>3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
CROW: It's "Thou shalt not..." um...wait, I know this one...
>
>4. BIOGENESIS
>
>5. LIVING ANIMALS
>
>6. DEAD ANIMALS (FOSSILS)
>
>7. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
MIKE: Darn it, once you formulate a scientific theory it should be left
sacrosanct, never to be considered and improved upon.
>
>8. CAUSE AND EFFECT
>
9. EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
>
>10. LIFE, THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN MATERIAL
>
>
>"WHAT IS THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR CREATION?"
>
>
>QUESTION: IS THE UNIVERSE DESIGNED?
TOM: Maaan, funk dat!
>
>1) Design.
>
> In my opinion, the Universe is clearly the result of intelligent
>design, plan and purpose. The Universe is incredibly orderly and
>complex.
CROW: Orderly, compared to what?
> This is not the result of chance natural events, it is the
>result of an intelligent designer. Consider the microscopic world of
>the atom with the precise mass ratio of the electron to the proton,
MIKE: Ingesting lots of recreational drugs will help you see electrons and
protons first-hand!
> or
>consider the large domain of our solar system with the precise masses
>and orbits of the planets. Consider photosynthesis, human
>reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, eyes etc.
TOM: Shell
CROW: Teeth
MIKE: Eyes
CROW: Flames
TOM: Claws
MIKE: Breath
CROW: Scales
ALL: Fun!
> The
>conclusion that these complex systems are result of an intelligent
>designer requires much less faith than the idea it arose by time and
>chance.
TOM: Well, not really.
>
> I have read a lot of evolutionist literature, and I have never seen
>an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK!
ALL: Daah!!
TOM: Don't *do* that!
CROW: Didn't Janeane Garofalo have that tattooed on her arm?
MIKE: Yeah, but then she got it covered up with something else.
TOM: How *odd* that someone would eventually come to regret having a
permanent bodily marking done...
> How
>could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half
>the population evolve male systems, and the other half evolve female
>systems that work together so precisely and in such incredible
>complexity to produce a baby?
<All cough, throat-clear and fidget>
>
> Mt. Rushmore, as you probably know, consists of the facial images of
>four ex Presidents on the side of a mountain.
CROW: Nope. Didn't know that.
> Suppose a tour guide
>told his tour group that those faces are "the result of billions of
>years of nature, such as glaciers, lighting and erosion."
TOM: It's fun to pretend!
> How long
>would the tour guide keep his job? What would the tour group think?
>He'd be fired by lunch time and his tour group would think he was
>insane! Those images obviously required planning, design and an
>artist.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Now watch, here's where I'm gonna draw a completely
unrelated analogy.
>
> Suppose an anatomy teacher at your school taught that human faces
>are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as mutations,
>natural selection etc." How long would this anatomy professor keep
>his job? He would feel very secure in his job and might make Dean!
CROW: Why? Just for teaching us basic stuff like that?
>The anatomy professor who taught that the human body appears to be the
>result of an intelligent design, is the one that potentially would be
>fired.
MIKE: I dunno, I've seem some faces that definetly weren't the result
of intelligent design.
CROW: Those guys from "Ee-Gah!" and "High School Big-Shot" come to mind.
>
> Look at your computer. Suppose I tried to convince you that a
>glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory,
>and a silicon factory all exploded,
MIKE: Timothy McVeigh strikes again.
> started on fired and mixed
>together. The result of this explosion, chemical reaction and time
>was your computer.
TOM: <BillyJack> When you're crazy as I am, these comparisons make sense!
> You would never believe it. Your intellect and
>logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an
>explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce
>something as functional and orderly like a computer.
MIKE: Try telling anyone running Windows '95 that his computer is
"functional and orderly."
TOM: Heh heh heh heh heh....
CROW: Hey!
>
> Don't let anyone convince you that your body is the end product of
>an explosion, the mixing of chemicals and time.
TOM: Marlon Brando's body is.
> Your body is
>infinitely more complex than your computer, that is because it was
>made by a smarter designer!
CROW: ...God!
>
>
>2) The First Law of Thermodynamics
>
>QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?
MIKE: From where?
>
> Ask an atheist to explain how they think the Universe originated.
TOM: <BillyJack> Then suckerpunch the bastard when he's not expecting it.
>Did all the energy and matter in the Universe create itself by natural
>processes? The First Law states energy and matter are neither created
>nor destroyed. Atheist beliefs contradict this basic law of science.
CROW: <BillyJack, whispering> They're evil!
>
> Creationists argue that energy and matter had a supernatural
>origin. This position does require faith, but it is in conjunction
>with the First Law and thus requires less faith than the atheist's
>position that it created itself from nothing.
TOM: Okay, let's just take this in terms of faith. What requires more
suspension of reality to believe: an ethereal, omnipotent superbeing
who created humans and demands their worship, or a big space explosion?
MIKE: Tom...
TOM: Look, I'm not saying who's right or wrong...
>
> Imagine that I could create a very special box.
CROW: But *all* boxes are special in the eyes of the Lord!
> This box is sealed
>so that nothing can enter it from the outside, and there is nothing
>inside the box to begin with.
MIKE: Oh, I saw David Copperfield do this once.
> If we came back to that box in 20
>billion years, would there be anything inside of it? The First Law of
>Thermo says there will be nothing inside of that box. Matter and
>energy do not appear from nothing. An atheist may say that since this
>entire Universe came from self created matter and self created energy,
>it is possible an entire Universe may exist in that box.
TOM: But the universe is not a sealed box! Mike, what makes you hu-mans
believe that just because you're capable of abstract thought you have
the brain power to comprehend something as complex as the creation of the
universe, even though you're all confined to a little rock of a planet and
haven't even come close to leaving the Western spiral arm of your podunk
backwater galaxy, which means you've hardly had any first hand experience
with the universe apart from the aforementioned rock you're all so hung up
on centralizing the universe around!?
MIKE: Crow, is there some medication I'm supposed to be giving him?
TOM: Look, I'm just saying, is all...
>
>
>3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
>QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET SO ORDERLY? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE
>GET SO MUCH USEFUL ENERGY?
>
> Question for atheists...did all the energy and matter in the
>Universe increase in complexity and order on its own? The Second Law
>states that in a closed system (like the Universe, the earth is not a
>closed system)
CROW: So, a minute ago he's likening the universe to a sealed box, and
now he's saying it's *not* a closed system?
> over time, energy will become less available, systems
>will become more disordered and entropy will increase.
MIKE: Flaws in the system will become severe...
> This Law
>explains that the Universe is running out of available energy (energy
>that can do work, like gasoline, the heat produced by gasoline's use
>is energy...but it can't do any work).
CROW: Frankly, Gasoline Heat is shiftless and lazy, and his parents should
really stop coddling him the way they do.
> To believe the Universe
>originated as a compact bundle of matter that expanded (Big Bang), and
>created an orderly, energy filled Universe violates the Second Law.
TOM: The Universe was taken into custody this afternoon and entered a
plea of Nolo Contendere.
>
>
> Creationists believe a supernatural entity, working outside the
>natural laws of science gave order and available energy to the
>Creation. This requires faith, but much less faith than the belief
>that order and available energy appeared by chance.
TOM: Once again, what makes more sense: complex and unexplainable
metaphysics utilized to create all matter, or big space explosion?
>
>
>4) Biogenesis
CROW: Bionintendo!
TOM: Biogenesis!
CROW: Bionintendo!!
TOM: Biogenesis!!!
MIKE: Guys...
>
>QUESTION: HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
>
> Remember some of your Biology classes?
TOM: <Stoner> You kidding? I was baked outta my skull...
> Early in the semester the
>teacher taught you that spontaneous generation was impossible
>(Spontaneous generation was a belief that life originated from
>nonliving things). People used to believe that bacteria could
>originate from broth, that rats could originate from garbage and
>maggots could originate from rotting meat.
MIKE: <BillyJack> And that is absolutely true! They can!
> Over 130 years ago, Louis
>Pasteur conducted experiments that demonstrated the folly of
>spontaneous generation.
> Later in the semester your teacher taught you evolution. Allow me
>to quote from a current Biology text book:
TOM: "'Twas brillig, and the..."
>
> "Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from inanimate material
>today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different when
>Earth was only a billions years old. In that ancient environment, the
>origin of life was evidently possible and it is likely that at least
>the early stages of biological inception were inevitable."
>Campbell, Neil; "Biology," 1987, page 504.
CROW: Oh, sure. Nine years old counts as current.
>
> Do you see what this author did?
TOM: Did you see it? Well? Did you?
> He admitted spontaneous
>generation is impossible today, but he puts his faith in the belief
>that the early earth had different conditions in order for life to
>originate from inanimate material.
CROW: How dare he!
>
> Statements similar to the one in Neil Campbell's text are very
>intellectually dishonest.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Neil must be severely punished.
> Any person seeking scientific explanations
>to difficult questions should not accept an explanation that clearly
>violates a law of science in order to uphold a person's bias. Mr.
>Campbell knows Biogenesis presents a very significant stumbling block
>to his pro-evolution faith, since scientific (observed) knowledge
>tells us that life does not arise from dead matter.
TOM: Disheartened, he tries his hand at soup-making.
> When his text
>brings him to explaining life's origin what does he tell the students?
MIKE: <Mr. Campbell> Hey, did I ever tell you kids about the sixties?
>He starts by telling them the truth that life does not arise from dead
>things today, but billions of years ago life arise from dead things
>was "evidently possible and "inevitable."
> Decide for yourself, but I feel Neil Campbell when confronted with
>a scientific law that contradicts his world view (perhaps atheistic),
CROW: <BillyJack> Perhaps Neil is a godless heathen!
>would rather violate the scientific law than acknowledge that
>supernatural intervention is a possible explanation for the origin of
>life.
MIKE: <BillyJack> I want him dead.
> What Mr. Campbell wrote is not education, it is not science, it
>is Neil Campbell's biased unscientific opinion. I encourage you,
>though, to decide for yourself.
TOM: <BillyJack> Just so long as you agree with me.
> The origin of life question is covered in detail in Dr. Mark
>Eastman's book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space," which I will mail
>to you if I get an address from you.
CROW: Uh, I'll pass on that, thanks.
[end part 1]
-- Brian Pacula (http://users.aol.com/gb8b/)
Joel Thomas Ruggaber
>> Ask an atheist to explain how they think the Universe originated.
>TOM: <BillyJack> Then suckerpunch the bastard when he's not expecting it.
Speaking as an atheist, I don't want to see anything else
like this online. I browse newsgroups in a library. I was
laughing so hard one of the staff thought I was having an
episode. Keep up the good work.
The Mighty Timm
from a friend's account
Please do not send email
Rob Bowell
Hi Dr. Nick!,
In article <4krn87$6...@ecom3.ecn.bgu.edu>,
mu...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Joel Thomas Ruggaber) wrote:
>bpa...@hooked.net (Brian N. Pacula) writes:
>
>>> Ask an atheist to explain how they think the Universe originated.
>
>>TOM: <BillyJack> Then suckerpunch the bastard when he's not expecting it.
>
>Speaking as an atheist, I don't want to see anything else
>like this online. I browse newsgroups in a library. I was
>laughing so hard one of the staff thought I was having an
>episode. Keep up the good work.
Yes, yes! Good show old chap! *whips out a cigar, shoves it in
Brian's mouth, claps him on the back and invites him to join some sort of
obscure British hunting club, which is really just a cover for a horrific
Illuminati/occult group*. I /really/ loved this. It kept me howling all
morning one day this weekend. =]
Stay pink, soft and oily,
Rob Bowell
**********************************************************
They're hardly divisible, sir-well, I can do you blood
and love without the rhetoric, and I can do you blood
and rhetoric without the love, and I can do you all
three concurrent or consecutive, but I can't do you love
and rhetoric without the blood. Blood, is compulsory-
they're all blood, you see.
-The Player in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead"
**********************************************************