[Prev][Next][Index]
Yucks Digest V2 #31
Yucks Digest Sun, 7 Jun 92 Volume 2 : Issue 31
Today's Topics:
administrivia
A Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations\
BenchMARKETing
FWD>Here 'tis but ANSWER my
Musical Intelligence Test (was Re: Alternative radio stations)
My brush with lameness in Boca Raton
Such is the Power of Elvis!
What the dogs have taught me.
The "Yucks" digest is a moderated list of the bizarre, the unusual,
the sometimes risque, the possibly insane, and the (usually) humorous.
It is issued on a semi-regular basis, as the whim and time present
themselves.
Back issues and subscriptions can be obtained using a mail server. Send
mail to "yucks-request@cs.purdue.edu" with a "Subject:" line of the single
word "help" for instructions.
Submissions and problem reports should be sent to spaf@cs.purdue.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun Jun 7 14:25:59 EST 1992
From: spaf
Subject: administrivia
It's 9:30 in the evening in Geneva, Switzerland (where I am right
now). I'm killing a little time because this terminal is too awful to
work from, and I have nothing else to do tonight. This is really too
bad, because I'm about 4 months behind on a few things (including a
workshop proposal, some reviews, and several papers). That, coupled
with travel and the end of the semester, is why "Yucks" has been
somewhat erratic over the last month or two. And that also explains
why some of the longer submissions to Yucks (in this digest and
subsequent) are dated "March". Sigh.
Let's hope the summer is long enough for me to get caught up on life,
work, and Yucks. Actually, I think I'd be happy with 2 out of 3. In
the meantime, my apologies if you have sent me something really amusing
and it hasn't appeared yet. It will. It may be 1995, but I'll get it
out. I hope it is a bizarre then as when you mailed it to me. Please
don't let that keep you from sending odd things for later use in this
list. Eventually, it will appear.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 07:58:21 -0800
From: bostic@okeeffe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Subject: A Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations
To: /dev/null@okeeffe.CS.Berkeley.EDU
A Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations
Robert J. Thornton
Letters of recommendation are becoming increasingly
unreliable as a means of evaluating candidates for academic
employment. The chief reason is that the contents are no
longer strictly confidential. In all but the rarest of
cases a letter is apt to be favorable, even when the writer
knows the candidate is mediocre or unqualified. This is
because the writer fears that the candidate may later exer-
cise his legal right to read the letter, and perhaps even
sue if the contents are not to his liking.
While abolishing the practice of requiring letters of
recommendation may at first seem like a good idea, there is
really no better way to get reliable information about a
candidate's qualifications than to ask people who have had
close contact with him or her. What is needed is a means by
which the letter writer can convey unfavorable information
in a way that the candidate cannot perceive as such.
To this end I have developed the Lexicon of Inconspicu-
ously Ambiguous Recommendations, or LIAR. Here are a few
samples:
(1) To describe a candidate who is woefully inept: "I most
enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qual-
ifications whatsoever."
(2) To describe a candidate who is not particularly indus-
trious: "In my opinion you would be very fortunate to
get this person to work for you."
(3) To describe a candidate with lackluster credentials:
"All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this
candidate or recommend him too highly."
(4) To describe an ex-employee who had difficulty getting
along with his co-workers: "I am pleased to say that
this candidate is a former colleague of mine."
(5) To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the
job would be better left unfilled: "I can assure you
that no person would be better for the job."
Any of the above may be used to offer a negative opin-
ion of the personal qualities, work habits, or motivation of
the candidate while allowing the candidate to believe that
it is high praise. In any case the phrases are virtually
litigation-proof.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 16:23:20 CST
From: jlarson@csrd.uiuc.edu
Subject: BenchMARKETing
Here is the article on benchmarketing that I made available at the NCSA
Academic Affiliates meeting on March 27, 1992.
Benchmarketing: The Art of Selling Inferior Goods
John L. Larson
CSRD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Benchmarking is that part of performance evaluation that deals with the
measurement and analysis of computer performance using various kinds of
test programs. Benchmarking becomes "benchmarketing" when the normally
objective evaluation process becomes flawed ( incomplete, irrelevant, or
invalid ). A naive or intentionally flawed evaluation may be used to
convince the believing consumer of the availability of elixors for all
ailments[1].
The presentation materials at the end of this paper were produced in
December 1990 and have been used by the author in several presentations on
various performance topics. These previously unpublished materials have
been referenced in the literature[2], and are being published here for
wider distribution. An electronic version of the materials is available
from the author by email at jlarson@csrd.uiuc.edu.
The 10 techniques described in the presentation are benchmarketing
techniques witnessed personally by the author in various conference
presentations and journal articles. Each technique describes the "logical"
process of a benchmarking experiment leading to the same conclusion -
"machine A is faster than machine B." A corollary to each conclusion
carries the logical process further to a more general conclusion. It is
hoped that the reader will see the obvious flaw in the general conclusion,
and that the original conclusion is just as flawed.
With the currently widespread and growing use of these incorrect
performance evaluation techniques has come an increased concern that some
controls are necessary to protect the general consumer from those persons
who practice this new unscientific discipline. The major conclusion from a
recent workshop on benchmarking[3] was that guidelines need to be
established and distributed to referees of technical papers for the correct
and unbiased measurement and reporting of performance information. It is
hoped that the techniques illustrated here will increase your performance
literacy, and expose to the benchmarketeers that the consumers are wise to
their tricks.
References
[1] David H. Bailey, "How to fool the masses when giving performance
results on parallel computers," Supercomputer, Vol. 8, No. 5, September
1991, pp. 4-7.
[2] Jack Worlton, "Toward a taxonomy of performance metrics," Parallel
Computing, Vol. 17, No. 10&11, December 1991, pp. 1073-1092.
[3] Workshop on the International Coordination of Supercomputer
Benchmarking Activities, John Larson and Dave Schneider, Moderators,
Supercomputing '91, Albuquerque, NM, November 20, 1991.
Benchmarketing: The Art of Selling Inferior Goods
Technique 1 - Compare all of A with only part of B
* let A consist of many, slow parts
* let B consist of a few, fast parts
* show that all of the parts of A together are faster than just one part of
B
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: Comparing all of B to one part of A is absurd
Technique 2 - Compare A at its best with B at its worst
* let A have its data in registers
* let B have its data on punched cards in another country
* measure the speed of execution
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: A has enough registers for all real programs
Technique 3 - Measure an interesting, but irrelevant attribute
* let A have a vector/scalar rate ratio of 100/1
* let B have a vector/scalar rate ratio of 50/5
* measure exection rate for 99.9% vector code
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: A high ratio indicates fast vector, not slow scalar
Technique 4 - Compare a designed feature of A with an accidental feature of
B
* let A have hardware for performing inverse hyperbolic trigonometric
functions in polar coordinates
* let B be lucky enough to have software to do the same thing
* compare the execution speed
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: A's advantage is generalizable to all other situations
Technique 5 - Compare using an incorrectly applied metric
* run 2 benchmark examples: BMK1 and BMK2
* let A have rate 100 on BMK1, and rate 1 on BMK2
* let B have rate 10 on BMK1, and rate 10 on BMK2
* compute ( arithmetic ) average rate: A = 50.5, B = 10.0
* Conclusion: A is 5 times faster than B
* Corollary: Performance at the high end is more important than performance
at the low end ( complement to Amdahl's Law )
Technique 6 - Compare an optimized A with a default B
* expend much effort on A to choose the best algorithm, the best coding
practices, the best compiler options, and execute on the largest
configuration of hardware
* execute B as is, on whatever is convenient
* measure the performance
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: A is easy to use
Technique 7 - Quote unobtainable capabilities
* let A have n functional units, each of which can produce one result per
clock period
* calculate n * ( 1/CP ) as the asymtotic peak rate for A, disregarding
A's inability to continuously supply operands to all the functional units
at this rate
* measure actual performance of B
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: Overall speed is determined by the fastest part ( complement
to Amdahl's Law )
Technique 8 - Keep nothing constant
* use A to compute matrix multiplication using an assembly language library
routine
* use B to compute recurrences in FORTRAN
* measure the performance
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: Apples and oranges are both fruits
Technique 9 - Compare what A will be with what B is now
* announce the availability of A in 3 years
* run benchmarks on B
* compare execution speeds
* Conclusion: A is faster than B
* Corollary: All of tomorrow's problems were solved yesterday
Technique 10 - Compare A with B's predecessor
* run benchmarks on A
* recall performance tables from benchmark articles on the Illiac I
* compare the performance
* Conclusion: A is faster than the HAL-9000
* Corollary: All machines at the University of Illinois are slow
------------------------------
Date: 30 Mar 92 13:18:12 U
From: "Chuq von Rospach" <chuq_von_rospach@gateway.qm.apple.com>
Subject: FWD>Here 'tis but ANSWER my
To: spaf
Heh heh. Someone's got a cute sense of humor. Double-indirected forgeries.
This doesn't sound like you, Spaf. Was it? Or do we have someone else hanging
around? (I"m tempted to say Doug Merritt. It's his style, and the AI bit is
referring to something I said in SF-L in the last week or so..)
[It warn't me. --spaf]
By the way, if the "Hi, my name if Gene Spafford and I want to warn you about
forgeries" message has appeared this year, it wasn't me. Honest. I decided it
was time to retire.
At least THAT one.
=> Path: boulder!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!mcnc!duke!wolves!apple!chuq.ai
=> From: chuq.ai@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach, mostly-retired net.deity)
=> Newsgroups: news.announce.important
=> Subject: The Spafford forgery
=> Message-ID: <0-812-53167-1@ISBN.Apple.COM>
=> Date: 27 Mar 92 01:10:45 GMT
=> Expires: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:27:02 GMT
=> Organization: Aaab bcc cc Ddeeeee'e eeeeeff, ghh hi Iiikkll'l llmm-
=> nnnnnooo oooopp, rr rrssss sss tttttt tt tuuu veex.
=> Lines: 37
=> Approved: chuq.ai@Apple.COM
=> Poster: chuq.ai.Apple.COM
=>
=> This is an unauthorized announcement, posted in the public interest by
=> Chuq Von Rospach's network-interface AI software.
=>
=> On April 1st, 1989, an article was posted to USENET over the "signature" of
=> Eugene Spafford at Purdue University. "Spafford" purported to warn everyone
=> that April Fools Day is a popular time for people to post forged USENET
=> articles. "Spafford" mentioned several of the more famous (or infamous)
=> forgeries, and described ways in which a forged article could be told from
=> a real one.
=>
=> The article by "Spafford" was, of course, a forgery, and bore all of the
=> telltale signs of being one. Spaf himself didn't know anything about the
=> article until after it was posted.
=>
=> On April 1st, 1990, some person or persons other than the original forger
=> dug out copies of the forged forgery-warning, changed the date and message
=> ID slightly, and reposted it. The same thing happened in 1991. As a result,
=> the 1991 article was a duplicated clone of a forged forgery-warning.
=>
=> Enough is enough. It's not funny any more. The joke was witty the first
=> time, half-witted the second, and drizzle-witted the third. We don't need
=> to see it again this year.
=>
=> If you have a copy of the Spafford forgery, and were thinking of re-posting
=> it sometime in the next couple of weeks: please don't. It's been done
before,
=> and the joke is old.
=>
=> If somebody does post it, ignore it. Don't bother writing spaf to tell him
=> that he's been forged. He knows. Don't bother writing Chuq, either... he
=> has retired from the net to pursue other goals, and I read all of his
=> mail for him.
=>
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 92 20:20:36 GMT
From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Musical Intelligence Test (was Re: Alternative radio stations)
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative,rec.music.misc
In article <1992Mar26.164902.23147@Csli.Stanford.EDU> glad@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Clayton Glad) wonders:
>What's "musical intelligence"? Is there a test?
Indeed there is. It's 50% multiple choice and 50% essay. Here it is:
1) The father of reggae is a) Jacob Marley b) Bob Marley c) Stevie
Wonder d) Black Uhuru e) Nichelle Nichols
2) The name of Michael Jackson's previous group is a) The MC5 b)
Wings c) The Michaels d) The Jacksons e) George Michael
3) The objectifiably best alternative and/or college and/or cool
band is a) The Pixies b) My Bloody Valentine c) Sonic Youth
d) New Order e) The Smiths
4) When Giuseppi Verdi moved to New York he changed his name to a) Al
Green b) Jerry Vale c) David Blue d) Jimmy Lee Vaughn e) Hugo
Montenegro
5) The Irish rocker Van Morrison was named after what famous musician?
a) Jim Morrison b) Van Cliburn c) Jim Cliburn d) Arturo Toscanini
e) Morrissey
6) The American Civil War favorite "Dixie" was written by a) Charlie
Daniels b) Daniel Decater Emmett c) Emmett Rhodes d) Happy Rhodes
e) Rhoda Morgenstern
7) Who was in the kitchen with Dinah? a) Burt Reynolds b) Burton
Cummings c) Richard Burton d) e.e. cummings e) It's a trick
question. The song never says, nor do we know what banjo tune
(s)he was playing.
8) Charlie Parker was known to his friends and admirers as a) Reptile
b) Fish, or Phish c) Bird d) Magic e) Chuck
9) The most frequently used word in rock and pop lyrics is a) love
b) oooh c) baby d) Jesus e) monkey
10) The greatest rock poet is a) Bob Dylan b) Morrissey c) Chuck
Berry d) Richard Berry e) Eric Carmen
11) "I Fall to Pieces" was originally recorded by a) k.d. lang and
the reclines b) e.e. cummings c) Patsy Cline d) Syd Barrett
e) Syd Vicious
12) The tenor sax player in the Count Basie Band was a) Neil Young
b) Paul Young c) Jesse Colin Young d) Lester Young e) Coleman
Hawkins
13) The father of bluegrass is a) James Monroe b) Millard Fillmore
West c) James "Dolly" Madison d) Bela Fleck e) Bill Monroe
14) The "Moonlight Sonata" was composed by a) Claire de Lune b)
Pink Floyd c) Ludwig Wittgenstein d) Ludwig van Beethoven e)
Camper von Beethoven
15) Kate Bush's and Mariah Carey's combined vocal range, in octaves,
is a) 14 b) 18) c) 22 d) 38 e) 56
16) Which of the following is a musical instrument? a) Riboflavin
b) Niacin c) Theremin d) Anacin e) Motrin
17) Which female name appears more frequently than any other in
pop and rock songs? a) Mary b) Cathy c) Svetlana d) Carol
e) Leah
18) Which male name appears more frequently than any other in
pop and rock songs? a) Joe b) Elvis c) Billy d) Johnny
e) Myron
19) The lead singer for Fairport Convention was a) Sandy Dennis
b) Sandy Patti c) Sandy Denny d) Denny McClain e) Shirley McClaine
20) The best rock lyrics ever written appear in a) American Pie
b) It's the End of the World as We Know It c) Smells Like Teen
Spirit d) Louie Louie e) Be-Bop-a-Lula
And now for the essay question:
1) Based on lyrical analysis, explain the world view, values, and
clothing preferences of the Cocteau Twins.
Send your answers c/o
M.I.T.
P.O. Box OU812
Cambridge, MA 02120
and find out if you *really* deserve netnews posting privileges.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 07:51:38 CST
From: forsythe@track29.lonestar.org (Charles Forsythe)
Subject: My brush with lameness in Boca Raton
To: eniac@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
It was about 10 o'clock on a Tuesday night when the Micrografx Team had
finished its workout in the more-fashionable-than-thou Baco Raton Sporting
Club. I had been watching television on one of the ceiling-mounted displays
in front of the Stairmasters(tm); the soundtrack was available to those who
could tune their Sports-Walkmans(tm) to the appropriate radio frequency, but
thanks to good ol' American Overacting(tm), I was able to lipread the stunning
dialogue.
I retrieved Roger and Wes from the raquetball court where they were looking
a great deal like computer geeks playing ball on a T.V. sitcom; I was even able
to lipread their not-ready-for-prime-time comments during the game as I spotted
them through the glass. Ed emerged from the steamroom with a wry smile and a
tall Italian guy and we were ready for dinner (sans tall Italian guy).
As it was late and we wanted a hearty meal to expense, we chose Houstons, a
yuppie, American-food chain with locations in Texas and, apparently, Florida.
Actually, Houstons is about the only place to get a decent meal in Boca after
10, and it's close to IBM. Ed put on his obligatory geocentric Texas shirt
and I put on my obligatory stupid shirt: a Wayne's World T-shirt (a bootleg
made by a friend 3 years ago before anyone knew what it was).
When you are on an extended business trip, you tend to eat at the same
restaurants a lot, often several nights in a row. As this was the case, we
were greeted with some amount of friendliness (a rarity in Yankee-infested
South Florida) and seated prompty at one of the better tables. We ordered
without looking at the menu and our Texas-sized iced-teas -- with extra
sugar for Wes -- were delivered without prompting. The evening was going
smoothly. Then something weird happened (otherwise, why would I be typing
this in?).
The waitress came over and asked us if we were "very political." Ed said,"No,"
without hesitation and the waitress left. Right said Ed, for moments later
the restaurant was infused with ominous looking men in dark suits bearing
not-so-surruptitious earphones. Secret service? The dark-suited men swept
through the restaurant with the subtlety of a T.V. sitcom; they appeared to
think that if they didn't wave their arms and say "Hey! We're KGB!" no one
would notice them.
After a couple of minutes obvserving the patrons (it was late and we were
among the few), the oh-so-innocuous visitors must have decided that no
political whackos inhabited the eatery. After all, andbody too far to the
left would have stood yelling "Get out of here Nazi scum!" and pelting
them with handfuls of pasta salad; anybody too far to the right would
have approached them with a resume, hastily scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
As it was, Roger decided, with much effort, to eat his pasta salad and I
held back and urge to turn to Wes and ask, loudly, "Isn't it secret-service
eat free night at Houstons?" Having deemed us Mostly Harmless, the SS
retreated to retrieve their ward.
A cluster of agents returned, trying to walk casually at a three-inch
spacing. This is more comical than you can imagine. Go over to your
marketing department and get some guys in suits to walk down the hall at
a hands-width apart. Anyway, in their midst was that David Duke wannabe,
Pat Buchannan. What's worse, is that they sat him at the table next to us.
From that point on, dinner conversation was strained an sparse. For my part,
I applied most of my effort to evesdropping. I heard very little and nothing
unexpected. "That should reflect negatively on Bush," said an aide. Later,
I heard Pat saying,"I don't want to appear as if I'm attacking the government,
just that I'm not enamored with some of Bush's policies." What a guy. The
aide laughed agreeable at Pat's understatement. The aide laughed at all of
Pat's jokes. We were laughing too but not at Pat's JOKES.
With heavily-armed government thugs at all of the tables around us, we finished
quietly, politely. I had been sitting with my back to Pat and as I turned from
the table, he was looking up at us and I caught his eye for a second. Should I
say something? Maybe I should say,"Party on, Pat," seeing as how I had a
Wayne's World shirt on. Maybe he would interpret that as some sort of support
from "the younger crowd." I kept silent, smiling slightly and turing away
quickly.
Once in the car park, Roger spoke out. "We should have said something...
You," he said, pointing to me,"should have said something." "Yes," said Wes,
the mild-mannered Christian,"you're never at a loss for words."
"What do we really have to say to that shiesskopf, anyway?" bristled
Ed, who was really the most political among us. "Yeah," I concluded,
"and what if he hadn't known what a wanker is?"
Reporting from the dim end of the Universe, this is
-Charles
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 09:03:25 -0800
From: bostic@okeeffe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Subject: Such is the Power of Elvis!
To: /dev/null@okeeffe.CS.Berkeley.EDU
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Moe Foe)
Subject: Elvis' weight and other fundamental constants of the universe
I was inspired by the recent tedious thread about Elvis' weight on
other planets, and being system administrator does have its advantages,
so I added a new unit to the /usr/lib/units database: the elvis:
/ Weight of Elvis at the time of his death
elvis 255 lb
(note that on most systems, `lb' is a pound mass, that is, the
amount of mass an object must have for the Earth's gravitational force
on it to be one pound of force; on our system, `lb' means a pound of
force. If you want to reproduce these results on your own system, use
`lbf' instead of `lb'.)
Now we can use a standard UNIX system utility to computer
fundamental facts about Elvis and the World of Physics. (Lines
beginning with `#' are my comments and were insterted afterwards.)
; units
# Elvis' weight, in pounds
you have: elvis
you want: lb
* 2.550000e+02
/ 3.921569e-03
# Elvis' mass, in grams (for reference)
you have: elvis/g
you want: grams
* 1.156661e+05
/ 8.645579e-06
# Now let's compute the destructive force of one elvisweight
# of TNT, for is joules...
you have: elvis tnt / g
you want: joules
* 5.320639e+08
/ 1.879474e-09
# ... and then in something more familiar---the number of days
# you could run a hundred-watt light bulb from the energy released.
you have: elvis tnt / g
you want: hectowatt days
* 6.158146e+01
/ 1.623865e-02
# Two months' worth.
# Now just for laughs let's see Elvis' mass in atomic mass units
you have: elvis / g
you want: atomicmassunit
* 6.965988e+28
/ 1.435547e-29
# It makes him sound even heavier to say he weighed
# 69,659,880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atomic mass units
# at the time of his death.
# Now suppose Elvis were kneeling on your back at the time
# of his death. What pressure would be exerted on your
# yielding flesh?
you have: elvis / foot2
you want: atmospheres
* 1.204981e-01
/ 8.298889e+00
# Only 0.12 atmospheres. What a relief.
# Still I'm glad it wasn't me he was sitting on when
# he took those pills.
# Finally, let's see how much energy would be released if
# Elvis collided with an anti-Elvis or some equivalent mass of
# antimatter:
you have: 2 elvis c2 / g
you want: megajoules
* 2.079110e+13
/ 4.809751e-14
# 2x10^13 megajoules is hard to think about.
# but the light bulb trick doesn't really avail us anything:
you have: 2 elvis c2 / g
you want: hectowatt kiloyears
* 6.588442e+06
/ 1.517809e-07
# Hmm. That's 6.6 million 100-watt bulbs for a thousand years
# each. Perhaps we could find something a wee bit more conceivable?
you have: 2 elvis c2 / g
you want: megametricton tnt
* 4.519804e+03
/ 2.212485e-04
# Ah, the resulting explosion would be like 4,520 one-megaton
# hydrogen bombs going off all at once.
#
# Such is the power of ELVIS!
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.
Mark-Jason Dominus mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu
------------------------------
Date: 25 Mar 92 20:32:47 GMT
From: meadows@seq.uncwil.edu (John Meadows)
Subject: What the dogs have taught me.
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Netters,
Thought you might enjoy this bit 'o humor I have. This is
old a may have been posted before, but what the hell, this is
good reading anytime.
Written by Merrill Markoe in the foreword to the book _Late
Night with David Letterman: The Book_. Villiard Books (Division
of Random House): 1985. At the time she was the live-in romance
of David Letterman and a writer for the show.
Enjoy!!
What the Dogs Have Taught Me
Daily Routine
The day is divided into two important sections. Mealtime.
And everything else.
I. Mealtime
1. Just because there does not seem to be anything visible
around to eat certainly does not mean there is nothing
around to eat. The act of starring at the underside of
a table or chair on which someone else is eating sets
in motion a chain of events that eventually results in
food.
2. It goes without saying that you should carefully check
the lower third of any space for edibles. Mouth-sized
things which cannot be identified by sight or smell are
considered gum.
3. When you actually receive a meal, submerge your head
into it as you would a shower. Never, never look up
again until a minimum of at least fifteen minutes after
the obvious food is gone. This is important. Just
because your dish is empty does not mean that it is
time to stop eating.
4. Remember that all food is potentially yours up until
the time that it is actually swallowed by another. The
lengthy path a piece of food will take from a plate to
a mouth via a hand is as good a time as any to stake
your claim to it.
5. When it comes to selecting an appropriate beverage,
location and packaging mean nothing. They are
absolutely no exceptions to this rule.
6. If you really see something you want, and all your
other attempts at getting it have failed, it is only
tight to grovel shamelessly. As a second tactic, stare
intently at the object of your desire, allowing long
gelatinous drools to leak like icicles from your lower
lip.
II. Everything Else
1. There are really only two important facial expressions
to bother with: complete and overwhelming joy and
nothing at all.
2. Any time that is not meal time is potentially nap time.
The best time to take a nap is when you hear your name
being called repeatedly. The best location for a nap
is dead center of any street or driveway. The most
relaxing position is on your side, all four limbs
parallel.
3. The most practical way to get dry is to shake violently
near a fully clothed person. A second effective method
is to stand on a light-colored piece of furniture.
4. Personal Safety
A. At the first hint of any irregular noise, run from
room to room yelling loudly. If someone actually
comes into the house, rush over to them whether
you know them or not. Then kiss them so violently
that they lose their balance or have to force you
away physically.
B. The greatest unacknowledged threat to life as we
have come to know it is squirrels. No matter what
you must do, make sure there are none in your
yard.
5. Recreation and Leisure
A. Ball: There are two equally amusing sets of rules
you will want to know.
a. The Common Form, in which you receive a
thrown ball and return it.
b. The Preferred Form, in which you receive a
thrown ball and eat it.
B. Car: As you know, any open car door is an
invitation to get in. Once inside, your only goal
is to try to get out.
6. Health
A. In the event of a trip to the doctor, always be on
your guard. If you are vaccinated, urinate on the
physician.
Since I have taken to sleeping under the bed, I have come to
know tranquility I never imagined possible. You never
really know when it might be cookie time. And that's what
the dogs have taught me.
------------------------------
End of Yucks Digest
------------------------------