![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
terribleturnipSo, passing by a church and their message board reads: The Titanic was built by professionals, the Ark by amateurs.
Oh, where to begin?
I'm feeling combative, so I have to remind myself that, really, I need to get to the client's house and don't have TIME to go inside and ask "What's your point?"
The Titanic was real. The Ark was not. Of course an amateur can build an imaginary boat that doesn't run into an iceberg and sink. I once built an imaginary ship that cruised the whole world, had lots of animals on it and didn't even need a crew or supply replenishment. Of course, I was eight, so...
Maybe there was a real boat that did have to contend with a big flood and maybe this guy knew it was coming and loaded up a lot of local fauna for the ride and, true, it did not sink. Although it did run aground on a mountain top. But the Titanic was real for sure and had to contend with icebergs and had pianos and chandeliers and all sorts of other stuff.
But see, the Titanic's problem was not that it was built by professionals...and what are they saying here, that professionals are godless and deserve to get a comeuppance? Or are incompetent? Given a choice between some doctor who's top in the field and someone who reads a lot of Robin Cook books, but goes to Church every Sunday and really BELIEVES...who are they going to choose to take out their appendix, the people who put up that sign?
But I digress. The Titanic's real problem is that they didn’t have 800 varieties of shrew with which to stuff the hole to keep the water from filling the ship, like Noah had. (Like all those years at see, with all of those animals, and all of those heathens floating around in the sea, between the porcupines, beavers and gerbils inside and some really, really desperate people outside, you know that Noah had some hull breaches. I know, the Bible fails to mention it, well, suprise there, eh? If you doubt me, you'll notice there there are only like 300 varieties of shrews nowadays -- it takes a lot of shrews to stuff a hole. (Thank goodness for the unicorns and basiliks who provided the initial bulk to fill the hole or we'd be down to like, three kinds of shrew and I'd sure miss that elephant shrew, they make me giggle, that little tiny trunk-like nose!)
If the Titanic had had enough shrews, well, they would have been fine...although no one would have made a movie about people frantically stuffing a hole with shrews. And despite the sappy, Leo and Kate moments which I fast-forwarded through, the special effects were cool...
Although, they did make “The Killer Shrews” which is totally worth watching, especially the MST3K version. No actual shrews were stuffed in holes to keep hulls from leaking, but the shrews do make holes in walls to get at the inhabitants. And you will have to vote on which is more lame, the shew hand puppets who do the close-in attacking or the dogs wearing mops that are the action shrews. (Greyhounds, German shepherds...jury's still out) And see if you agree that the movie really should have been “Goddamn Shrews Again, Someone Pour Me a Drink”. Because despite being stuck on a tropical island with limited resources and being attacked by giant mutant shrews, these people always seem to have time for a cocktail. If you drink every time they do, you may not remember the ending of the movie. Which is not a bad thing, really.
Of course, the real lesson on the message board SHOULD be, although this would be tough to put on a sign: Both Noah and the makers of the Titanic were boastful, so one ran into a mountain, the other ran into an iceberg. So don't be so full of yourself or you will be smited. (Smote?) But Noah was trying to save a bunch of animals and the folks on the Titanic THOUGHT many of their fellow passengers were animals and DIDN'T try to save them. That's why Noah was okay and Leonardo DiCaprio had to drown. Plus, if you're in a boat and you have to run into something and a soft tropical beach isn't an option, a mountain would be a better place than an iceberg. And it never hurts to pack a few extra birds. And of course, shrews. And a cocktail shaker.
Oh, where to begin?
I'm feeling combative, so I have to remind myself that, really, I need to get to the client's house and don't have TIME to go inside and ask "What's your point?"
The Titanic was real. The Ark was not. Of course an amateur can build an imaginary boat that doesn't run into an iceberg and sink. I once built an imaginary ship that cruised the whole world, had lots of animals on it and didn't even need a crew or supply replenishment. Of course, I was eight, so...
Maybe there was a real boat that did have to contend with a big flood and maybe this guy knew it was coming and loaded up a lot of local fauna for the ride and, true, it did not sink. Although it did run aground on a mountain top. But the Titanic was real for sure and had to contend with icebergs and had pianos and chandeliers and all sorts of other stuff.
But see, the Titanic's problem was not that it was built by professionals...and what are they saying here, that professionals are godless and deserve to get a comeuppance? Or are incompetent? Given a choice between some doctor who's top in the field and someone who reads a lot of Robin Cook books, but goes to Church every Sunday and really BELIEVES...who are they going to choose to take out their appendix, the people who put up that sign?
But I digress. The Titanic's real problem is that they didn’t have 800 varieties of shrew with which to stuff the hole to keep the water from filling the ship, like Noah had. (Like all those years at see, with all of those animals, and all of those heathens floating around in the sea, between the porcupines, beavers and gerbils inside and some really, really desperate people outside, you know that Noah had some hull breaches. I know, the Bible fails to mention it, well, suprise there, eh? If you doubt me, you'll notice there there are only like 300 varieties of shrews nowadays -- it takes a lot of shrews to stuff a hole. (Thank goodness for the unicorns and basiliks who provided the initial bulk to fill the hole or we'd be down to like, three kinds of shrew and I'd sure miss that elephant shrew, they make me giggle, that little tiny trunk-like nose!)
If the Titanic had had enough shrews, well, they would have been fine...although no one would have made a movie about people frantically stuffing a hole with shrews. And despite the sappy, Leo and Kate moments which I fast-forwarded through, the special effects were cool...
Although, they did make “The Killer Shrews” which is totally worth watching, especially the MST3K version. No actual shrews were stuffed in holes to keep hulls from leaking, but the shrews do make holes in walls to get at the inhabitants. And you will have to vote on which is more lame, the shew hand puppets who do the close-in attacking or the dogs wearing mops that are the action shrews. (Greyhounds, German shepherds...jury's still out) And see if you agree that the movie really should have been “Goddamn Shrews Again, Someone Pour Me a Drink”. Because despite being stuck on a tropical island with limited resources and being attacked by giant mutant shrews, these people always seem to have time for a cocktail. If you drink every time they do, you may not remember the ending of the movie. Which is not a bad thing, really.
Of course, the real lesson on the message board SHOULD be, although this would be tough to put on a sign: Both Noah and the makers of the Titanic were boastful, so one ran into a mountain, the other ran into an iceberg. So don't be so full of yourself or you will be smited. (Smote?) But Noah was trying to save a bunch of animals and the folks on the Titanic THOUGHT many of their fellow passengers were animals and DIDN'T try to save them. That's why Noah was okay and Leonardo DiCaprio had to drown. Plus, if you're in a boat and you have to run into something and a soft tropical beach isn't an option, a mountain would be a better place than an iceberg. And it never hurts to pack a few extra birds. And of course, shrews. And a cocktail shaker.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 11:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 01:50 pm (UTC)even as a kid, i never understood how EVERY animal fit in the ark and no Sunday school teacher ever had a good ansewr. (though i did reason for myself that's why unicorns died out. there just wasn't room for them.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-26 02:21 pm (UTC)Oh, and if you buy into the bible, Noah had divine assistance so I think even if he'd set sail in a colander he and the animals would have been just find in the palm of God's hand. Though why a deity would *want* to save a creature stupid enough to set sail in a kitchen tool is beyond me. Seems like a breeding program designed to breed stupidity and sheep-like tendancies into the population... wait... Crap. This is all on purpose, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 03:53 pm (UTC)Movies...
Date: 2007-10-27 07:56 pm (UTC)If you have a copy of Killer Shrews, I would love to see it one day. I will bring the blender.