Saturday, September 07, 2013 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Yo-yo banned in Syria

Blamed for drought by Muslims

BEIRUT (Syria), [date]. Drought and severe cold is disastrously affecting the cattle in Syria, and the Muslim chiefs at Damascus have attributed the wrath of the heavens to the recent introduction of the yo-yo.

They say that while the people are praying for rain to come down from above the yo-yo goes down, and before reaching the ground springs up through the subtle pull of the string.




The chiefs interviewed the Prime Minister, and exposed the evil influence of yo-yos, so they were immediately banned.




Today the police paraded the streets and confiscated the yo-yos from everyone they saw playing with them.



Source: Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, New South Wales: 1888 - 1954), 23 January 1933

The censored date at the top was January 21st. I changed "Moslems" to "Muslims" so that it's not clear from the beginning that the text is ancient. Educated readers realized that anyway because Beirut hasn't belonged to "Syria" since 1943 (the correct name of the state should have been The French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, anyway) and because Muslim chiefs will only return to command police in Damascus after the possibly looming war.

At any rate, the similarity with the IPCC-backed religion cannot be overlooked. People see two things happening at about the same time (one of them has been happening for billions of years but they don't care), they decide that correlation and even coincidence is the same thing as causation, and the rest is just about making sure that the law enforcement forces enforce this deep life-saving insight. ;-)

The yo-yos probably resemble the rain droplets. Before they can reach the ground thanks to the gravity of the prayers, the force from an evil string returns them to the clouds. The springs, if any, stretched between the clouds and the rain droplets may look too weak but that's OK because they're surely strengthened by positive feedbacks. The debate is over.

Thanks to Steve Goddard for the URL

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (9) :


reader Peter Golian said...

1.My college roomate expert on shamanic techniques when was too long drought says “Only kung-fu master could call rain.“ :)

2.Now seriously even in fantasy if I take into account Butterfly effect, there is no chance that exactly one object (yo yo) could cases that there is no rain.

3.I am preparing mechanical statistics simulation in Matlab program, where I would have a look also on Butterfly effect.


reader Helen Barratt said...

Lubos, the missing date in parentheses for your 'Yoyos Banned in Syrian' article is January 23, 1933 :) see http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/06/2013-conflict-in-syria-blamed-on-drought-caused-by-global-warming-flashback-1933-yo-yo-banned-in-syria-blamed-for-drought-by-moslems/


reader Luboš Motl said...

No, it's not. Why don't you click at the source? Or, which could be easier, why don't you kindly notice that this blog is more reliable than anything else you can think of and you can't think of?

The news from Beirut was from January 21st, without mentioning the year - which was 1933 - and it was published in the January 23th, 1933 issue of the newspaper.


reader Helen Barratt said...

Obviously I'm doing something wrong, how do I click at the source? Where is it?


I provided a link that i found by Googling 'banned yoyos Syria'. I couldn't find the link to the source here that was provided by you.


Anyway, even if there is a link to the source somewhere on your web page, the original date of January 1933 was not showing anywhere on your 'Yoyos banned in Syria' article. So I think there was a tendency for the reader to think that yoyos are being blamed for the current drought in Syria and that they have been recently banned, when that is not the case. At least that's what I thought when I first read your article, that this was breaking news not old news.


Sorry if I'm mistaken and somehow not seeing your link to the source when it is staring me in the face.


reader Helen Barratt said...

OK, now I can see it, was it there all along? Maybe I need glasses :(


reader Tom Trevor said...

Lubos I'm not sure which is better 1) deleting comments from those who don't understand the multiple and brilliant points you are making,or 2) ignoring those comments, or 3) attempting to explain it to them. I doubt that #3 is possible, if they don't get it right away, they never will.


At any rate, Lubos, this is a brilliant analogy for so many things that a relevant today. Thanks for posting it.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks Tom, believe me, and you probably know it, I've spent more time with 3) than pretty much anyone else. 2) would be likely to transform the comment threads into another copy of the generic trolls' forums and I just don't want it - one's personal blog is like one's living room and many people decide not to allow homeless folks from the street to use the carpet in the living room as a toilet. The case of the blog is analogous.


reader lucretius said...

I suggest that all posts that say (effectively) no more than "I agree with someone" or "I think he/she is right" should be immediately deleted. I don't understand why so many people think it should be interesting to anybody that they "agree" with someone when they don't give an even slightly original reason for this (e.g. see some comments on the Turok post).
(Well, maybe you could make an exception of Nobel prize winners, etc. ;-))


reader Luboš Motl said...

Exactly, you reproduce my way of thinking about the meaning of comments.


Screaming "I don't agree" when the commenter obviously hasn't thought about some things or just copied some trivial slogans from somewhere is the commenting counterpart of the Viagra spam. It's completely worthless, discourages more creative and interesting people from discussions, and just wastes people time, aside from raising my adrenaline level. ;-)