In "Kader Attia's flying rats"

I'm told that the 'moose' is sadly not moose meat. It apparently has something to do with eggs, though I haven't been able to verify that.

In "The Catholic Church has Announced that the Bible isn't all true"

It's worth noting that that's not a specifically Catholic source. The vast library's worth of writings by Catholic theologians, popes, bishops, saints, etc. over the past two millenia are incredibly contradictory. It's pretty damn hard for even a Catholic well-educated in their faith to make their way through it all without some guidance. Most of the sources on that site that flat-out support the idea of literal biblical truth are, well, older sources. Saint Augustine's writings, while important, do not dictate what's in the current version of the Catechism. Given how much the Church has changed in the past few centuries, I'd be leery of taking anything much older than Vatican II as proof of "what the Church thinks today." Several of the other sources [e.g. Catholics United for Faith] are groups _of_ Catholics, but they're not the Vatican - they're not necessarily any more representative of the Church's official views than, say, groups that support female ordination [who I'd support, but that's another matter.] Of the remaining statements, which are all ambiguous or against a totally literal reading of the bible, I've only ever heard authorities take the view presented by the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: essentially, some version of limited inerrancy. [This was the consistent message I heard at two Catholic schools and several churches in a large diocese.] Can I guarantee that Pope Benedict won't make a papal decree tomorrow stating that the bible is inerrant? No, and sure, given the growing conservative movement and the Pope's comments about pruning the Church, it's possible that things will change soon. However, in the last few decades, the mainstream view presented in schools and churches has been less ambiguous than your link would suggest.

In "Curious George: I Want Turquoise Highlights!"

I use Special Effects brand hair dye - I've found that it generally lasts three weeks to a month before it starts fading and looking sad. However, I don't bleach my hair [I go for a deep royal blue], so it doesn't get the mossy look that faded blue dye on yellowish bleached hair gets. Also, my hair just takes well to dye - some people have better luck with hair dying than others. With dark brown hair, you're going to have to bleach to get a lightish color like turquoise to show up. It may be a little hard to do the bleach yourself, if you're doing something as delicate as highlights. The dye will probably be easier to do at home, since it probably won't show up on your unbleached hair. If you do go the home dying route, I suggest leaving the dye in for a long time. I generally dye my hair, put on a shower cap or something, and go to sleep - wash it out in the morning. It can help not to use shampoo every time you shower as well. I've been doing this for the past four years or so, and the results have been pretty consistently decent the whole time.

In "The Catholic Church has Announced that the Bible isn't all true"

ladyknight, you haven't seen any shock or surprise in American papers because it's not news - it's a reiteration and clarification of something that's been true for the Church for ages. Perhaps it seems more noteworthy in a nation that's mostly Protestant, while the US has a large Catholic population. The Catholic Church has never believed in the whole super-literal sola scriptura thing. That was more the product of the Protestant mindset, which suggested that every person could [and should] interpret the Bible for themselves. During Roman and medieval times, this mostly meant that the studies of theologians contributed to the catechism; more recently, historical findings and yes, even science are also taken into account. In Catholic schools today, students generally learn about the Bible as a historical document as well as the Bible as a religious text. That includes learning about the two creation stories in Genesis, the flood myth [common throughout the Middle East] which became the story of Noah in the Bible, all that stuff. The idea is that the Bible is a holy text, but it's also a holy text whose many different stories were told by and eventually written down by humans. That's also why the Catholic Church does not have problems with evolution [although I'm sure there are a few ultra-conservatives who'd rather get rid of it.] So no, this isn't some big change, and it isn't the British bishops fomenting some sort of lonely theological battle against the Vatican. It's a bad piece of journalism relating something that's no news at all, at least not to anyone who is actually familiar with the modern Catholic Church.

In "Curious George: In what order should I read the _Chronicles of Narnia_?"

techsmith, for what it's worth, I'd disagree a little with rodgerd's analysis of The Last Battle. It isn't quite as simplistic as he puts it, at least not in my reading of it. The bad guys are the Calormen, as in The Horse and his Boy [may have spelled that name incorrectly, it's been a while], but Lewis makes it clear partway through the book that they aren't to be condemned for doing what they believe is right. The "resolution" that rodgerd is referring to is the result of the fact that Lewis was a Christian, and thus a monotheist... but it's as liberal and inclusive a resolution as a monotheist can have towards people who don't believe in their religion. The last point, I think, is less about "wearing lipstick and stockings" than "dismissing Narnia as imaginary and worthless," more an allegory for renouncing one's faith than anything. The Last Battle definitely has a lot more Christian allegory than the rest of the books [even Aslan's resurrection in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe], but I actually didn't find it to be all that bad. It certainly seemed to fit in with Lewis' vision, and although it was obviously religious, I didn't find it offensively so.

In "Curious Funky Monkey Jorge"

huh, that didn't work. eschewing HTML: js, try soulseeX. it's for macs. i've never used, but i've friends who do. soulseek's a great network for finding obscure stuff.

js - try soulseeX. I haven't used it myself, but I've friends who do. The server's been up and down a bit recently, but if you're looking for obscure music, it's worth it.

In "Curious George...<i>Rectum!</i>"

Not quite what you're talking about, I guess, but Fleet Bank in Boston recently became Bank of America. Now whenever I go past one of their ATMs I get REM's "Exhuming McCarthy" stuck in my head. ["Loooyal to the Bank of America..."]

In "Thhe Cuddly Menace"

this is a thing of beauty. beauty and terror.

In "Curious George wants a ‘nana. "

fried baloney sandwiches. in retrospect, the very idea is more than a little appalling.

In ""

timecube or destroy all monsters? real friendship versus a cat with a tiny face? ostrich on the loose versus sigmund freud action figure? how is a thoughtful person supposed to make solomonic decisions such as these?!

In "Are your ready for the Apocalypse?"

er, the post comment button, it dislikes me. someone beat you to it, pareidoliaticboy. well, sort of... an acid lab isn't quite the same thing. and unfortunately, they got caught.

someone beat you to it, pareidoliaticboy. well, sort of... an acid lab isn't quite the same thing. unfortunately, they got caught.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)