From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 13:50:44 MDT
On Wed, 14 May 2003 23:23:23 -0700, spike66 <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
> What is the etymology of the term "squicked"?
"Squick" appears to have originated at MIT, where it was supposedly an
onomatopoetic word, imitative of the frictional sound made when a human
penis engages in frottage of an exposed human brain. I believe the word was
used in those circles as an ejaculation, i.e. when working on hard
problems: "Grind, grind, squick, squick."
It attained a great deal of currency online in the early 1990s on Usenet's
alt.sex.bondage newsgroup, where it took on the meaning of visceral
distaste/turnoff/"your kink is not OK". Ex.: "I am squicked by <x>", "You
squicked me", and the singleton (often mock) safeword "SQUICK!".
> If lightning never strikes in the same place
> twice, and your lightning rod gets a hit, should
> you throw it away? Do you need to get a new one
> to replace it? How do the later lightning
> bolts know which places are already taken?
You do need to throw it away. If you replace it, it counts as a new place.
That's too risky. The later storms use a process known as "lightning
calculation" to determine where not to hit.
> What is the origin of the term etymology?
> What was the first game ever invented? What
> did people play before that?
The first game ever invented was "am I really going to kill you or not?"
Before that, people just played dumb.
> If a watched pot never boils, and mass-energy
> is a conserved quantity, into what form does the
> energy of the fire under a watched pot go? Could
> you use a pair of fake eyes to fool the pot into
> thinking it is being watched?
The energy goes into producing watches. Einsteinian mass-energy equivalence
means it takes a very long time for an actual (visible to the naked eye)
watch to manfest. Which is good, because past that point it can go into
over-unity feedback.
Fooling pot with fake eyes isn't that easy; pot does make some people
paranoid, but it tends to be mellow itself.
> In a society that gets all squicked and starts
> passing laws forbidding teens from their tongues
> surgically split, why do we routinely whack off the
> tip of the newborn's penis? Presumably against
> the infant's will?
Because it's no skin off the adults' nose.
Sorry I missed the party.
MMB
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 14:29:18 MDT