“Single Axle?!  That’s gonna cost him so many points…Double Lutz?!  Uckh!”  — Scotty Hamilton.

“All that’s on is figure skating….Uckh!” — Adam Patrick

…that I am growing weary of The Black Eyed Peas.  Anyone for black eyed peas and rice?

bool post () {

/* Unless you know something about C and/or the Bible, read this post at your own risk; */

printf(“In modern computer programming, two types of subroutines are commonly used — procedures and functions.  The difference between the two is that functions always return a value to the caller — just like a function in mathematics — and procedures never do.  Students of the C language quickly learn that C does not have procedures.  C only has functions.  We should require more research to find out whether the designers wanted to nudge the programmer towards always returning values from subroutines or give the programmer a better feel of what the compiled language looked like.  The latter is often the case in C, so we will make that our guess.”);

printf(“Regardless, C does allow the programmer to imitate a procedure call with a function that returns ”void.”  Those in our audience with Bible on the brain will instantly remember Isaiah 55:11^{, ”}So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”  This raises three questions in our minds:  %d. Is it possible that the C designers had this Scripture in mind when they wrote their specification?  %d. If a new C variant were created — call it Biblical C — would all functions be required to returned a value and not void?  %d. Why didn’t we think of this before?”, 1, 2, 3);

return true;

}

/* I guess that makes me a weirdo even more than using vi in Windows does. */

During a conversation that was nice, but not interesting enough to share here, the fellows and I concluded something interesting.  We declared; the four food groups shall henceforth be known as “Wheats, Meats, Teats, and Beets.”  Why can’t the FDA come up with mnemonic devices like that?

Folks, it is time for your annual reminder.  ‘Tis the season for felicitations.  We have previously discussed the whatfors, wherefores, and why-nots (you can find them in Decembers past on this web site), so this year, you just get the reminder and a story.  Last Christmas-time, I actually had someone ask me “What about folks who don’t celebrate Christmas?”  As it almost never happens, I was prepared for that question by a recent discussion.  I simply said, “Well, Jesus is for everyone.”  He said, “Good answer.”  So, splash around a few “Merry Christmases” this year and when you have the chance, remind someone why Jesus came in the flesh.

Consider this.  About half of the covers of What Child Is This? that I have heard within the last five years have changed “ox and ass” to “ox and lamb.”  What would William Chatterton Dix think of this?  We shall never know; but in my humble and sometimes wrong opinion, it is presumptuous to arbitrarily alter a word in a 150-year-old song for fear of offending someone with the word ass.  I will grant that different hymnals often have different versions of songs.  In fact, Wikipedia lists variations on nine lines of What Child is This? based on five hymnals.  It is interesting, though, that none of those alternatives includes “ox and lamb.”

Here’s the nub.  As an erstwhile songwriter, I can’t hear that song anymore without listening closely to that line to see what the performer has chosen to do.  I can say with certainty that any good songwriter (and Mr. Dix was one) would not arbitrarily pick “ox and ass.”  He picked those words because those were the ones he wanted in the song and we may reasonably assume that he thought about using lamb somewhere in that song.  Mr. Dix knew that lambs are found in a fold, while oxen and asses are found in a stable, where the Son of God was born.

You may say that the presence of shepherds in verse one justifies the reference to a lamb in verse 2.  This is a good argument, but I would counter: First, the songwriter indicates that these two are feeding; if a lamb did follow his shepherd to the stable, it would not be his normal environment for feeding (I’ll submit my judgment there to anyone who knows more about sheep than I do).  Second, and most importantly, changing a super-classic song out of fear is simply a bad idea.