Labels: Jokes

I've been to a few social gatherings in my time and at some of them speeches have been required. It's an odd area because sometimes the people making the speeches are exacctly the kind of people who love making speeches and sometimes the people concerned have been forced into it.

I do love listening to a speech regardless of the quality because it's usually entertainingly good or entertainingly bad. However if you are about to make a speech here are my two handy tips taken from real speeches that have gone well.

Tip one, for the person who makes a lot of speeches and does it well:
This one comes straight from the person I've seen make the most speeches in my life. He is famous for his speeches and always starts them with the same hoarey old line, "unaccustomed as I am", which because it's a lie and such an obvious one means he starts with a laugh every time. A good start is always important.

Tip two, for the person who doesn't often make speeches and might be nervous.
Keep it simple and keep it short. If you're stuck for a line that's simple and short then you might like to use this one which was used at a wedding I attended and was the entirety of the only speech. First he went all out for making everyone quiet and so on. Then had somebody say, "pray silence for the speeches" and then he said, "ok everyone, lets get pissed".

Note to American readers "pissed" in this context means "drunk".

Labels: Articles

Bill, who's sick of his nagging wife goes down to pub to meet with his mates for a couple of pints. After a while, one of his pals says, "What's up Bill, - you look a bit down, mate".

Bill explains that his wife has been giving him a real hard time lately - he hasn't finished decorating the living room! When's he going to get around to putting in the conservatory, decking and water feature as seen on TV? When's he going to get up the guts to ask for a pay rise so that they can go on holiday? etc. etc. etc. Why, he said, if he knew who to ask he'd gladly pay to have her 'disposed of'.

A bloke standing at the bar comes over and says - 'scuse me mate - My name's Artie - couldn't help overhearing what you just said. You got a photo of the old bat by any chance?

Bill shows him a photo - who reacts - "Bloody hell mate - that's one ugly woman. I'll get rid of her for you for a quid!

Bill is so amazed that he hands over a quid and the photo just like that.

'When and how will you do it?' he asks Artie.
'Tommorrow, when she goes into the supermarket.'

Sure enough, Bill goes to Tesco's only to see Artie following his wife. In the Fruit & Veg section, Artie pounces and grabs Mrs Bill round the throat - only to be interrupted by a shelf stacker. Artie promptly throttles him. He catches up with Bill's missus by the dairy produce and grabs her again by the throat. This time the Manager steps in. Artie throttles him too. He again catches up with the old bag and this time strangles her by the frozen foods and runs out of the supermarket.

The next day, in the local paper was the headline:
ARTIE CHOKES THREE FOR A POUND IN TESCO'S!

Labels: Jokes

As I'm just moving at the moment and having some work done before I move in. And it's revealed to me a very bizarre change that seems to have happened in the building world.

The thing is that there probably isn't that much that changes in the world of workmen. This could of course be incredibly prejudicial, but I think it's the case. I guess ease of access to electrical equipment and power tools have somewhat changed the job, but what I'm thinking of has totally revolutionised it. I mean to a tradesman this is the biggest thing since the portable radio, and all that meant was that they don't now have to whistle which probably saves them a little bit on lip-salve and not much else.

The big change for them must have come with the invention of the mobile phone. This really must have altered the way that they work. Simply because now they can book in their next job while they are still doing their current one. It's one of those technology situations where you suddenly realise "what on earth did they ever do before"? Did they have an answering service that they checked in on from time to time? Or did they only take calls in the evening?

I realised that the best way to find the answer to this was to simply ask them. But all of the people who are working for me said that they used to work for firms and be given jobs to do by the firm itself. So they had never worked as a sole trader without a phone. But then I wonder, is it not the mobile phone that has made it possible for them to quit their jobs and become a sole trader? It seems entirely possible.

Other things I have learnt from this moving experience:

1) Taking wallpaper off a wall where the wallpaper has had paint on top of it is really hard.

And

2) If you want to name your son after yourself then a really good name to have is Robert. I had two guys working for me at one point as a father and son team. The father was called Bert and the son Rob. It really helps to have two short names within your long name if you're going to try and pull a stunt like that.

Labels: Articles

Jake Turnweed was walking. What? Isn't that enough for you people? No? Oh I'm sorry. I do apologise. I hadn't realised that it was your story. So do go on then. Do continue. Write the next bit yourself.


Ummmm.



No? It's not so easy is it.


But I don't...


Oh don't give me this "you don't know what actually happened next" crap. He walked to school didn't he.



"Jake Turnweed walked to school"



Oh very clever. Very smart. I'm not impressed you know. I have absolutely no reason to be impressed. For that transgression I'm not telling you the rest of the story. See if I care.

Labels: Fiction

And the barman says, "Get out, we don’t serve your type in here".

Labels: Jokes

On Monday I started an article about Free Will called I feel like I just had to write this article. You may want to check that out before continuing here.

The problem of a lack of Free Will is one that happens in society. If we don't believe in Free Will then how can we blame people for the things that they do?

The biggest problem with the theory of Free Will is everyone has the everyday experience of making decisions and being able to rationalise them. Now Scientists have proven that people will much of the times rationalise their behaviour after they have done something. It's most likely that you've even seen direct evidence of this. One of the most interesting parts of a hypnosis demonstration is that they will sometimes ask somebody who is no longer under hypnosis why they were doing the things that they were doing. The answer is never "because you were telling me" to because they don't remember that they come up with incredibly contorted rationalisations to prove that they had a perfectly good reason to do what they were doing. And apparently we do that all of the time even when we're not under hypnosis.

So in reality we feel like we're in control, which means that people feel like they are able to blame others for their actions. So how does society cope with this situation? It simply pretends that Free Will exists.

Right around the point that people think of determinism people usually recreate in their minds the idea of Laplace's Demon. Pierre Simon Laplace believed in determinism and thought that if you took it to it's logical extension there could be a demon who could work out exactly where every atom in the universe was and use that information to determine the future. Now there are two problems with the demon (other than the fact that it doesn't exist).

The demon can't know itself because to remember something it has to store it somewhere and the memory must take at least as many atoms as the thing it is remembering and to know if its atoms are affecting any other atoms it would have to remember the position of all of the atoms in its own mind which would require more atoms up until infinity.

Also it would need to know everything and calculate what everything was going to do next faster than the time it takes for anything to happen. Which because of the fact that something has to happen for it to be able to work out what is going to happen next means that things out in the universe would have been happening as well so it must be too late.

For added measure even if it could work out what everything was going to do it would be impossible for it to do anything about it faster than in the space of time where everything would have changed.

The point of mentioning this is that Laplace's Demon teaches something important locally. It shows us that we can never know why we are making a choice. Because we never have all of the information.

Okay so what does all of this mean for ethics? How do we say to somebody that they need to be locked up for having done something wrong, when they can reply that they didn't choose to do it?

The answer is that we have justice the wrong way round too. It's a hangover from the ideas of Free Will that people have to be punished for the things that they have done. The correct way of thinking of this surely is that if somebody is a murderer the best way of stopping them from murdering somebody else is to put them in prison. It's much harder for them to murder people from in there.

The biggest failing of the current system is the idea of diminished responsibility. Why is it right for somebody to be able to get a reduced sentence by claiming that they were temporarily unable to control their actions. I don't mind losing this legal loophole. Because as far as I'm concerned I don't understand why under the current system every murderer doesn't claim temporary insanity. When the judge asks on what grounds surely they could simply say "well how often do you kill someone"? Frankly the only reason people don't claim this all of the time is because they either think they can get off or they know they didn't do it. In either of these situations they don't want to have to say they did it, which is what you have to do if you want to claim temporary insanity. Sometimes people do admit guilt and don't use the temporary insanity clause but those are the people who are actually truly insane.

The question you have to ask yourself at the end of all of this is the one I was attempting to answer in my first article, Free Willy, which is how much difference does all of this make?

In the end it comes down to a question of symantics. Understanding the issues around Free Will doesn't allow you to act any differently (other than perhaps allowing you to use the word "demon" at a party without sounding like you're into science fiction - although I'd probably advise you to avoid parties where describing questions of Free Will are likely to come up: "Why worry about having killed that hooker while high on drugs it's not like you choose to do it").

Essentially what's the difference between being able to say that you chose to do something and the alternative which is knowing that you didn't make the choice yourself but that nobody will be able to ever predict what choice you will make. A lack of choice does reduce us to the level of robots on the one hand but it doesn't matter because. When we look at a robot we can know exactly what they are going to do next because we can find out all of the information that they evaluate and predict what's going to happen next. But we can't do that with humans because we would have to evaluate more information than we could understand fast enough to do anything about it and we would have to store it somewhere larger than all of the space we have for in our own brains. And we would have to do something about in less time than we have time to do anything. So what difference does knowing that Free Will doesn't exist make? I think absolutely none, but you'll have to decide for yourself.

Labels: Articles, Free Will

It was an innuendo?

Labels: Jokes

Nick pointed out in a comment to Wednesday’s post Philtrum Filtering that Free Will could be an illusion simply because we make our judgments on the back of all of the conditioning that we have been receiving since we were brought up.

When I was writing about free will (in Free Willy) I was kind of skipping over to that bit to get to the next question which is that while patently free will technically doesn't exist what do we do about the fact that we as a society have to pretend that free will does exist all of the time.

So lets prove that free will doesn't exist first. To do this I will use the words of Douglas Adams:

Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, causes itself to happen again.

Basically we can probably say that everything that happens happens for a reason. This may be disputed because things might be truly random. You will have to decide for yourself if you think that things are random (heh see what I did there) but it seems likely that things happen because other things caused them to happen. And that everything simply leads backwards to the big bang.

Just as a confusing aside it's important to realise that nothing caused the big bang to happen. Religious people believe that they were made by God but that nothing made God. Scientists believe that they were made by the big bang (evolution is a local version of that because what made the first life-form?) but that nothing made the big bang.

Here's a story that Steven Hawking told in his book A Brief History of Time:

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"*

But religions tend to believe that God is the creator but nothing needs to create him, that he was always just there. Which is kind of cheating. Because if things could always exist why couldn't we be like that too? Why did we need to be created?

In science it seems like they suffer from the same problem. The universe just kind of begins and everything flows from there. So what caused the universe? Well nothing. Science has a handy trick of spotting it's own flaws and kind of paving over them. Only at the point of the big bang does time begin. And because if you want to use the word "cause" you need to have something that happens before something then to use the word "cause" you need time. And time doesn't start until the point the universe starts. So nothing can "cause" the universe because something would have had to have happened before the universe and there isn't any time for all of that - still following me? So basically they're saying nothing created the universe it just happened which sounds similar and lets face it probably is. Except if you think that things in the future can cause things to happen in the past in which case well we have a whole load of other problems on our hands.

So armed with the idea that after the big bang everything that has happened has been caused by that we have to decide if there is any chance of intervention in the process. Can we actually choose a thing. If we "decide" to have toast rather than cereal for breakfast is it because we have actually chosen to have one rather than the other or is it that we have no choice? Since the whole history of the universe has lead us to the situation of preferring toast. The weird thing is that it's probably the second one. Because the second one is the easier to explain. People even do it themselves, "I like toast rather than cereal because I sometimes feel queasy if I have too much milk". And the alternative requires you to have something more in your body than a series of cells. Because there would have to be some kind of thing (a soul perhaps) which science has never seen or been able to find which makes you able to ignore all of the history of the universe and have something else for breakfast. It’s the fact that we don't know or have ever seen it which leads us to believe that Free Will doesn’t exist.

For what this means for us you'll have to check back on Wednesday.

* This is why in Terry Pratchet's Discworld books the earth is sitting on a turtle. He always felt peeved at this story because surely the woman should answer "don't be a fool turtles don't need to stand on anything they swim".

Labels: Articles, Free Will

No money STOP Kill her STOP

I watch my dead body burning

Breakfast never came, I left home

In the beginning God was stillborn

[None of which, I'm sad to say, are a patch on Hemmingway's effort:
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn." - you can read a lot more examples in this article: Very Short Stories]

Labels: Fiction, Ultrashort

Poke him in the eye.

Labels: Jokes

In last Friday's article (
Deckchair of Death) I used the word Filtrum (or Philtrum it depends on your personal spelling preference) which is a pretty interesting word.

The Philtrum is the small groove that sits underneath your nose. And it's interesting mainly because of what it means for search on the web*.

During perhaps 2000 / 2001 there was an advert made by British Telecom that was aimed at promoting the internet. In the advert a young girl walked into the center of the coliseum and was faced with millions of different people sitting there looking at her. The girl then piped up with a question which was, "What do you call the thing between your nose and your mouth". Everyone in the coliseum goes quiet and then a guy stands up (wearing a lab coat) and says "It's called a Philtrum". And then the advert went on to extol the value of the internet as the place where you can find the answer to anything.

The interesting thing about that advert to me at the time was the at that precise moment there wasn't a way to find the answer to that question on the internet. In fact it's still the pretty much the case now. One of the hardest things to find information about on the internet is the collective group of "thing's you don't know the right name for". It used to be joined by "things you don't know how to spell" but Google solved that one so well that I know people who use Google as a spellchecker.

The big problem is that with this and many other things if you don't know the exact right question then you won't find the answer. Basically your only chance is if there happens to be an article which is titled with the question.

So say we actually plug "What do you call the thing between your nose and your mouth" with or without quotes into the major search engines. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Live all say no-way to it, with quotes they all say "no pages found" and without quotes they return answers which are equally useless. However ask does have the answer to the question the only article it returns whether you've put the question in quotes or not is the exact right one and bizarrely is an article about how best to search for an answer to the question. Actually to be fair to Yahoo the answer is the third one in the list if you don't include quotes but that may just be because the page is actually on Yahoo!

My main point is that while they've got better in many ways no search engine other than ask have really dealt with this problem properly. Ask, unfortunately, still doesn't return for me the best results in a normal search. So I wonder if the answer really is to have to recognise this is a special kind of search and return a different kind of page? I don't know, but the problem remains as difficult as it once was - at least it does for Google.


*There's another interesting thing too. According to Jewish tradition, in the womb every baby is taught all of the wisdom of the world by an angel, and then just before the baby is born the angel touches the baby on the upper lip (to shh the baby) which makes it forget everything it has been taught. Sadly the Talmud is silent on why this occurs. Maybe because it is bonkers.

Labels: Articles

They just ARRRRRR.

Labels: Jokes

In last Friday's article (
Deckchair of Death) I used the word "Dander" which is interesting (I think, but then what is this site other than things that I find interesting?).

To get one's dander up means to become angry. But the word dander doesn't really mean angry unless the "get my/his/her/their/ones" and "up" are wrapped around it. The rest of the time dander describes scurf* shed from the skin. It has the same root as dandruff, which is a specific form of dander. Dander is more often used to describe the kind of animal skin dust that causes people to suffer from allergies.

So what on earth has this got to do with being angry? Although I don't really have any allergies (except I am allergic to skin contact with Christmas trees - but it doesn't come up much) I would imagine it would make you pretty angry - but that isn't it.

So where does it come from? Well it seems most likely that saying somebody is getting their dander up is to suggest that they are becoming redundant. And although people do get mad when they get fired it isn't that either. Basically redundant means to have too much of something and a certain time it was used to mean "to overflow" (as in the extra liquid is redundant it is overflowing). And it's fair to say that a an angry person is one who is overflowing with emotions. So that seems to be it, although how the word mutated is still a mystery.


*Scurf? No? Really? Well that's kind of scaly matter, skin cells or scales etc.

Labels: Articles

We wheeled around the corner and then came to a sudden stop. There was a man, a young man sitting in a deck chair by the side of the house. The most important thing we knew was to discover if he was a stranger. That was paramount. Because if he was a stranger then we would have to cycle away as fast as we could.
Now I must admit that our curiosity was piqued. And because of that there was a slight bias in our questions to each other. If there was even the slightest hint that this young man wasn't a stranger then we would be free to investigate.
"Have you ever seen this man before?" I decided to cut right to the core of the situation.
"Well define seen?"
"Well the Oxford English dictionary defines seen as..."
"No no not all that again. I mean. I mean..."
"What can you mean? Either you've seen him or you haven't. Simple logic there, no gray areas, nice and clear."
"Well no it isn't that's the point. That's why I started all of this."
"So what prey is the point then"? I tended to get more fruity in my language when my dander was up.
"Well I haven't seen him per-say but I have heard talk of him from my Aunt. She was talking about a man very much matching his particulars just yesterday and I would say that she must have been talking about him".
"How sure are you that this is the same man?" My interest was piqued, we might have a chance.
"Well she was talking in shock about his shoes, and she was telling my cousin (your sister) in no uncertain terms not to trust him because of them".
"Why shouldn't you trust these shoes"? I asked, they seemed to me to be perfectly ordinary shoes.
"Well," my cousin said, "just you look at the lining of the shoes, it's purple. That, your mother said, was a sign of an insatiable appetite".
"But he's not a fat man, he's pretty slim".
"Well that's just what your sister said, but apparently, your mother said it wasn't that kind of appetite."
"Well I'm sure I don't know what she's talking about".
"Neither did I, but your sister and your mother started giggling when they said it. I felt it best to clear out".
"Good move".

We both just stood there looking at this insatiable thin man sitting possibly dead in the deckchair, wondering at things that had been said that we couldn't understand. And knowing that there were so many unknown unknowns out there that we knew we'd never know. And while we were standing there looking at him, a fly flew down onto his top lip and wandered along and walked right up his filtrum and into one nostril. A second later the chap sneezed and the fly flew out again.

But the sneeze had proved one thing at least this chap was still alive. And so just in case his mysterious appetite involved eating small boys we were off, cycling away into the sunset.

Labels: Fiction

Because she keeps running away from the ball.

Labels: Jokes

Does Free Will exist?

Free Will doesn't exist and does exist at the same time because it is a definition of a thing we don't really have words for yet. Let me go all tangential for a moment and come back.

How do you know when I see something green and you see the same thing that we aren't looking at different colors? If you've been told your whole life that red is green because that's the color you see when you see things that the world calls green then how do you know the difference? And does it make a difference at a traffic light? Of course not because you are looking for the color that you associate with the label that you associate with stopping or going.

People's view of the world is always colored (can I get away with that) by a wide variety of assumptions and rationalisations similar to this one which make no difference to the outcome of their actions. To take it to the next step people might think the sun rises every morning because they pray that it does. It would be such a terribly risky thing to not pray for the sun to rise that nobody would test the alternative. And if by some chance they missed their praying slot because they had been locked in a bunker by a crazed no-free-will proving person they would rationalise the situation by saying that their god had made the sun rise anyway to torture their captor.

So back to free will. You may think that you are responsible for your actions and that you control your own destiny but how do you know that? What is your outside proof? How can you prove that the color you see is the same color others see? The feeling you have that you are controlling your own actions is a biased piece of information as it comes from the place that you are trying to test. This means any attempt in yourself to prove that free-will exists is a flawed scientific experiment because you are attempting to decide if you are right by asking yourself. And you can't ask anyone else either because you set up the same problem (you are asking them to decide if they have free will).

Essentially the problem is that you can't really prove that Free Will exists. And therefore for all scientific purposes it must therefore not exist. But the assumption ingrained in people is that what we are perceiving is free will is so strong that free will is how the world operates and I will be punished if I do something wrong.

And this brings me back to my original point which is that Free Will as a concept is useless scientifically because it cannot be proved, and is useless to society because it cannot be disproved. So asking "is their free will" is a nonsense question similar to asking "is green green"? The answer is always simultaneously yes, no and it depends.

Labels: Articles, Free Will

Bob's a big hit with the ladies at the nursing home, because there are only a few men. Doris asks Bob out on a date.
Bob: I can't go out on a date with you. I'm going out with Gloria.
Doris: Well, I can take you out another time.
Bob: I'd prefer to go out with Gloria.
Doris: Why?
Bob: Gloria will take me out to dinner.
Doris: I'd be happy to buy you dinner.
Bob: Gloria will take me to a movie afterwards.
Doris: I can take you to a movie.
Bob: Well, Gloria will hold my penis during the movie.
Doris thinks about this minute then says "I can do that too."
Bob: I'd still rather go out with Gloria.
Doris asks frustrated, "What does Gloria got that I don't?"
Bob: Parkinson's

Labels: Jokes

I was on a train the other day when I saw a woman who was asking for money. She was doing that thing that is now very common which is that you stand at one end of the train and ask very loudly for the attention of the entire train. "Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'm very sorry to have disturbed you this evening, but I need just 12 pounds to be able to get in a hostel this evening and so that I don't have to sleep rough again tonight".

It is strange that this speech is now standard across a wide variety of people asking for money. I wonder how that happens? Although I suppose it might simply be that when people have managed to get themselves into shelter for the evening that they then exchange war stories of how they scraped up enough money for the evening.

On this particular occasion a woman who was sitting next to where I was standing gave her twenty pounds. It seemed an incredible amount of money to give. And I wondered both about why she gave so much, what was going on in her life so that she would give that much and also what twenty pounds would mean to the woman asking for money.

I was pleased to see that the woman who had received the money did get off of the train at the very next stop and didn't ask anyone else for any money. She didn't want to be greedy I guess. Also though as I was getting off of the train at the same point I was able to see that she wasn't a professional beggar as so many Daily Mail readers would believe. As she was walking along the platform, twenty pounds in her pocket, she picked up a fag butt off of the floor. It had clearly been smoked up to the bitter end but she clearly thought there might be something there so she put it in her pocket (after testing it in her mouth).

But what was it that made the woman give the twenty pounds. Had she never heard anyone tell this particular story? Was it that she felt solidarity for the beggar as a woman? Or was it simply that she decided to give something and a twenty was the smallest thing that she had but felt that it would be rude to ask for change?

I will never know. I really did feel moved to strike up conversation with the benefactor but I decided against it. I felt that she'd be charitable enough without testing her patience as well. And I really didn't want to discourage her which I felt I could have done when in fact I was simply curious.

Labels: Articles

A small light in the distance appears providing you with the first sensory input you've had in... Well you're not sure. It feels like a long time. The floor is soft or something when you rub your hands against it you can only vaguely feel resistance. Sort of like a non damp mist. What seems like a few hours ago you rubbed it for a while just to feel something. Everything else is dark and silent. But now this light. That was something. Something to focus on. But as it starts getting bigger your only fear is that it might be Them... coming back.

Labels: Fiction

A crusty old Sergeant Major found himself at a gala
event, hosted by a local liberal arts college. There
was no shortage of extremely young, idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom approached the Sergeant Major for conversation.
She said, "Excuse me, Sergeant Major, but you seem to be a very serious man. Is something bothering you?"
"Negative, ma'am," the Sergeant Major said,
"Just serious by nature."
The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and said, "It looks like you have seen a lot of action."
The Sergeant Major's short reply was,
"Yes, ma'am, a lot of action."
The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a
conversation, said, "You know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy yourself."
The Sergeant Major just stared at her in his serious
manner.
Finally the young lady said, "You know, I hope you
don't take this the wrong way, but when is the last
time you had sex?"
The Sergeant Major looked at her and replied, "1955."
She said, "Well, there you are. You really need to
chill out and quit taking everything so seriously! I
mean, no sex since 1955! Isn't that a little extreme?"
The Sergeant Major, glancing at his watch, said in
his matter-of-fact voice, "You think so?
It's only 2130 now."

Labels: Jokes

I had got on the wrong train by accident and this wrong train had taken me down a different fork of the line. Either I could have gone back into London or somehow I needed to cut across to the other arm of the fork. Taxi seemed to be the only reasonable option, but unfortunately they only had one taxi in this tiny little town. So I had to wait and wait I did. Unfortunately the little room that they had for waiting in was being kept at a healthy 100 degrees and the lady running the place was chain smoking so the room was humid, clammy and smoke ridden. And so I announced that I would wait outside.

I couldn't tell if it was actually cool outside or just in comparison to the heat of inside. But it was that kind of cool rush that you get sometimes which is so deliciously enveloping.

Anyway, while I was waiting there the taxi driver arrived. He as a young Hindu guy and he'd been told by phone that I was waiting for him so when he walked up to the taxi rank he said "Are you the guy who wants to go to Otford"?

I told him that I was. He said, "Hi I'm the Turbanator". And then he popped his head around the corner of the taxi office and said, "I found my fare, I'll be back".

Labels: Articles