It arose, and asked this stupid quention...
Toilet paper comes from trees. Trees are protected by Smokey The Bear who frequently cautions: "Only you can prevent forest fires!"
That's funny, and the Bears told me it was all a "Conspiracy Theory" Ha hahahahahahaahh!
The trees provide cover for the bears to hide behind when relieving themselves. When someone is standing behind a tree staring at it, can the tree sense it is being watched? Or can it only see out the front?
The answer to the quention, can be found, simply, by standing 'Behind' a tree!
In general I know myself not to be qualified to address Botany quetions, therefore your best bet is to call your local chapter of The Society For The Advanced Study Of Plant Excretions who, I'm sure, will be able to placate your curiosity about this.If a tree falls over in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, who is there to free the bears that get trapped by the falling tree, because they were too distracted doing their "business" to get out of the way?
The Society For The Advanced Study Of Plant Excretions, which is why when I called, them no one was there!
To the best of my knowledge, most societies operate on the opposite of the Hotel California principle: you can leave any time you want, but you can't check out.If a bear falls over in the woods and there's no one to hear it, would the bear's own testimony as to whether it made a sound be acceptable?
(i)D(i)Dot Typisssst here, as lawyer for the bears my client invokes his "Fifth Amendament" Rights, refuses to responce on the ground(s) of his inability to do so, and my refusal to translate anything he can, does, or might, mention to me.
Degree of stupidity is not the issue here. This is a matter of a very special and entertaining variety of stupidity the likes of which were not seen again till this thread.If a comedian falls over in the woods, and there's no one there to laugh at him, is it still funny?
Depends upon the angle of the fall, and does he do a "tuck and roll" and most importantly, was he hit by the tree, cause YA, it's (not)[/size] funny!
Nahh , I will import them. I won't bother myself with that [zz)]
Of course they are! Haven't you ever looked up to see your cat staring at you? It's like they know something!
I shouldn't think so. Probably all that happens is it will go to hell.
Thats hillarious, I was just havng this very debate just last week with my world reknown Ontological Professor Dr. Dot Diit. They stated that the proving of it was expletive, inasmuch as, it's obviousness was only slightly precluded by it's opacity, coupled to it's clear diaphaneous nature that provided a translucent view of the zero light value emissions that are know to occur for such and such a regions of space. Now as long as he doesn't drop the pebbles, then you will have what you saught, from the outset, but the truest of proofs is clearly inset in the bubbles of expression of proof, that is the "See See" statements, as they eminate from within the actual mediums supposed existent vacuum.
The answer to that leading quetion, leads me to its answer, namely: that very goal toward which the bait draws the respondant, which, in less clear terms, could be thought of as an affirmative or anti-negative conclusion. But that might be too hasty. So let me look more closely at the word obvious. Let me repeat it to myself so many times it is no longer obvious what it means, which is a meaningless way of obviating the quetion about the word obvious, a statement which means more than it sounds like it means, but I don't expect that to be obvious to anyone.What percentage of people reading that do you suppose understood it?
This quetion makes assumptions about the possesive form of the word "fly" that I don't think the quetioner is qualified to make. It additionally makes assumptions about the gender of the the fly that are gratuitous, and therefore, superfluous. It also makes assumptions about the status of the fly in terms of it being living or dead. For if we start to ponder whether or not a change in its ability to fly requires a change in its name, then we might just as well ask if all non-living flies shouldn't be called "lies".If you pull the wings off a boeing 747 what do you call it?
Only when it is supported by a circular distribution apparatus with it's incumbent "meteoritic" facing.
Nope! straightened it right out and the give it a curvature of spacetime every time he turned his head. (a novel demonstration device he called it)
Apparently...
An insightful and quite correct supposition, clearly based on intuition honed by years of experience in the field of gastrointestinal/cheese interaction. However you will be rejected by the mainstream till you can provide equations. Work some up in your spare time and the Nobel pize will be forthcoming.This (cheese), and the subject of "meteoritic facings" naturally segues into lunar issues: if the moon were composed of cheese (notice I am not asserting it is, this is a hypothetical proposition only) how long could the cheese needs of humanity be met by the quantity of cheese represented by the moon?