…and this is a 
So it's almost Valentine's Day, that schmaltzy holiday dedicated to commercializing love. I was sent a list of science-themed Valentine's Day cards, and I was shocked and disappointed. They're all freakin' physicists! Physicists know nothing of love; they're like atheists that way. Come on, Herophilus, Erasistratus, Galen, Avicenna, Servetus, Harvey…they're obvious.
Oh, all right, physicists are all dorks anyway. Go ahead and get your beloved a goofy card with some math nerd on it. I'll go down to the butcher shop and get mine a token she won't soon forget.
Sure, I know the meaning of love. It's muscular. It's alive. It throbs. And it's full of blood.
Comments
Posted by: j-brisby
|
January 20, 2011 7:20 PM
Cum is thicker than blood.
Posted by: BeyondKen
|
January 20, 2011 7:22 PM
Clearly the good doctor has not read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"
Posted by: te24hours
|
January 20, 2011 7:22 PM
And j-brisby ruins the thread right from the gates. Thanks. Elegant innuendo replaced by coarse, crass, juvenile vulgarity in the first comment. Bravo.
*sarcastic clap*
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
January 20, 2011 7:23 PM
But physicists include astronomers and astronomers gaze at stars and everyone knows that star gazing is incredibly romantic.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 20, 2011 7:27 PM
Stay classy, j-brisby. Stay classy.
Posted by: koolaidsoup
|
January 20, 2011 7:31 PM
Hey look, they even have Alan Turing for the gay couples on Valentine's day.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
January 20, 2011 7:32 PM
Sorry, didn't realize the room was so sensitive to tone.
As it happens, I was making an allusion to the more common expression "Blood is thicker than water", usually taken to mean that loyalty to kin trumps all others. My phrase is meant as an ironic observation that in real life, a man tends to choose his lover over his family.
Or to put it yet a third way, it really is hos before bros.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 20, 2011 7:32 PM
If you can't reduce love down to quantum fluctuations, then you have shown the reductionist materialist agenda dominating the cultural paradism among 'scientists' is a peverse and empty way of truly understanding the cosmos... Until it captures the essence of experience and recognises the quantum actuality of an expression of our will, then scores of scientists will be indoctrinated into embracing a false view of reality. It's only by embracing a holistic view that phenomena such as love will be placed rightfully at the pinnacle. Physicists neglect that, and thus have no business in celebrating Valentine's Day!
Posted by: te24hours
|
January 20, 2011 7:36 PM
The problem, j, wasn't that we didn't get it. The problem was that it was facile. I mean really, even if you must reduce yourself to the using the word at all, no one older than fourteen uses the three-letter spelling.
Posted by: Rixaeton
|
January 20, 2011 7:37 PM
I am sure that sentence needs a "Mwahahahah" on the end.
Posted by: Duce7999
|
January 20, 2011 7:40 PM
Are you referring to your cedar from a previous post?
Posted by: viggen
|
January 20, 2011 7:40 PM
Dude, Turing's not a physicist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Posted by: Evader
|
January 20, 2011 7:45 PM
I'm not too sure my babycakes would appreciate a cow's heart or a sheep's brain for V-day PZ :)
But, I admit, the idea appeals to me much more than a boring Hallmark card and/or Red Roses combo.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
January 20, 2011 7:46 PM
te24hours Not everyone is such a wilting violet as yourself. As for "no one" over the age of 14 using the word, reference please? Because that's a pretty "facile" argument.
Posted by: ironflange
|
January 20, 2011 8:02 PM
And they say there are no more true romantics.
Posted by: dan.doel
|
January 20, 2011 8:02 PM
Ada Lovelace was not a physicist, either. She was the first computer programmer.
Posted by: Law Mom
|
January 20, 2011 8:03 PM
Ah, love. A trick nature plays on us to get us to reproduce. Put that on a card.
Posted by: Killua
|
January 20, 2011 8:06 PM
Dammit BeyondKen, I wanted to be the first to mention Feynman.
And I should mention, Brian Cox is a lousy person for a valentine card.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIj-6fr2SlI
Do you REALLY want him to be your valentine when you can have this guitar player?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ&ob=av3nl
(PS, '39 is a song about time dilation, when was the last time Brian Cox had an epic song about physics?)
So PZ, you "biologists" have anyone who could stand up to Brian May in pure epicness? Didn't think so.
Posted by: Zeno
|
January 20, 2011 8:07 PM
My kid brother was invited to dinner at his girlfriend's home. The mother served up a hearty beef stew that my brother was enjoying -- except that the chunks of meat seemed oddly chewy. The mother realized he was confused and cheerfully explained that they were supping on beef-heart stew. My brother went pale and everyone was concerned until he insisted that he was all right (albeit suddenly queasy). He not only survived the meal, he married his girlfriend and today they are grandparents with (so far) four grandchildren.
Beef heart. It's what's for dinner. (No thank you.)
Posted by: janiceclanfield
|
January 20, 2011 8:10 PM
I am buying my beloved a fresh beating ChristianHeart® for Valentines day.
If it was good enough for the Aztecs, it's good enough for Hallmark.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
January 20, 2011 8:12 PM
The only time I've ever gotten a Valentine's card was way back in elementary school when we had to make those silly little boxes and put them on our desks and everyone gave out those ones with the lollipops. My other half despises all holidays but last year, he got me a new trowel. :D
@Zeno
Thanks. My dinner (left over beef stew) suddenly doesn't look so tasty.
Squigit
Posted by: bunny "le meurtrier"
|
January 20, 2011 8:27 PM
Beef heart isn't all that bad actually.
Chicken hearts on the other hand... ick. Especially if you were tricked and thought they were button mushrooms before digging in.
/thx ma
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
January 20, 2011 8:29 PM
I'm looking forward to March 14th.
Posted by: lorenzo.benito
|
January 20, 2011 8:30 PM
te24hours:
Get off your high-horse, moralist!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 20, 2011 8:31 PM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/02/scientific-valentine.html
I write today of human love
Not as some gift from god above,
But scientific views thereof
From many different fields.
Each science may have different tools,
And so the scientific schools,
Although they may agree on rules,
Have very different yields.
The chemists say it’s chemistry;
Biologists, biology;
Astronomers say “Can’t you see?
It’s written in the stars!”
In physics there’s a certain view
Psychology can claim one too
(And one with naught at all to do
With Venus or with Mars)
I’ve read a scientist who writes
That mating pairs scale passion’s heights
To outmaneuver parasites—
That could, of course, be it.
I’ve also read, we may respond
To those to whom we’ve grown quite fond
Because a stable mating bond
Makes offspring much more fit.
They may (or may not) all connect,
As scientists may well expect.
If one of them is more correct
Then I am not aware
But I am yours, if you’ll be mine,
My scientific valentine,
Through random chance or will divine
I frankly do not care.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 20, 2011 8:33 PM
Meat is love! This year, give the gift of meat. This message is brought to you by the Meat Council and meat people everywhere.
*sighs and resumes eating his lettuce*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 20, 2011 8:45 PM
That's what physicists say about biologists.
Posted by: Brian
|
January 20, 2011 8:51 PM
Today I learned that almost everybody I know is fourteen years old. Huh.
Posted by: anotherfrickenusername
|
January 20, 2011 8:53 PM
@#9, Oh come now. Don't be such a prude.
But, the three letter spelling, well, I'll grant you the Vonnegut always spelled it "jizzum".
Posted by: savage.spheniscus
|
January 20, 2011 9:05 PM
Are you kidding Killua??!?! Brian Cox totally makes me swoon. I actually made it one of the questions on my grade 12 physics test. (Who is my favourite living physicist?) I mean, Do You Know What Time It Is? What on the Earth Is Wrong With Gravity? - I don't know Brian, I just know when you smile it brings me to my knees.
Brains, plus a sexy accent. Dawkins and David Attenborough also make me wobbly, so maybe it's just the English lads...
Posted by: rather be fishing
|
January 20, 2011 9:34 PM
What's wrong with physics? In the words of a great scientist: "All of science is physics...". He had to be right, they gave him the Nobel prize for chemistry!
Beef heart stew, sounds good. I live with a vegetarian daughter and a vegetarian wife. The cats and I are the only carnivores in the house. The girls wants to convert the cats to vegetarianism.
Posted by: WCorvi
|
January 20, 2011 9:36 PM
"...physicists are all dorks anyway."
THAT's got to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: cuco3
|
January 20, 2011 9:37 PM
Yum! I haven't had heart in ages; it doesn't turn up in supermarkets very often and the traditional butcher is a rare beast round here.
Stuffed lamb's heart is wonderful.
I've never really understood why so many folk decry offal in general. There are some things I don't like - tripe, in particular - but most of it is lovely.
I guess I can see a sort of "ick" factor for the guts and kidneys, and anyone who only knows liver from school dinners is excused. But the heart? That's just muscle, and damned tasty.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 20, 2011 9:38 PM
As long as fish are veggies, the cats will be good to go for the idea...Posted by: Jeanette Garcia
|
January 20, 2011 9:57 PM
Thirty five years with the same person and both of you want to go another thirty five years. That's love. A tender slice of heart or tongue with fava beans wouldn't hurt.
Posted by: Holytape
|
January 20, 2011 10:05 PM
Paleontological Loving
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
January 20, 2011 10:06 PM
Are you talking about the heart or about a... lower organ?Getting the former in a gift wrapped box would be a nerdy yet romantic surprise but getting the latter in a gift wrapped box would be creepy.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
January 20, 2011 10:12 PM
?
PZ made a funny joke.
You beat it until it went limp.
Posted by: psychojayne
|
January 20, 2011 10:18 PM
Do. Want.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
January 20, 2011 10:26 PM
SGBM,
Now that was funny!
Posted by: Reality Enforcer
|
January 20, 2011 10:43 PM
Mmm, heart stew. It tastes soooo good. And the meat is so... Tender. ;)
Posted by: Evader
|
January 20, 2011 10:51 PM
Are you familiar with Saturday Night Live's "D*ck in a Box" song? (and no, they aren't referring to Ducks)
SNL: D*ck in a Box
Warning: Not too work-safe (use headphones!)
Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées
|
January 20, 2011 11:06 PM
Chicken heart?Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées
|
January 20, 2011 11:15 PM
Apparently, this clip has a Part 2, which is the relevant part.
Posted by: Jeff Bell
|
January 20, 2011 11:17 PM
The old saying goes: "Love is a matter of chemistry; sex is a matter of physics."
Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées
|
January 20, 2011 11:22 PM
Cats are obligate carnivores. Putting them on a strictly vegetarian diet will kill them.Posted by: elronxenu
|
January 21, 2011 12:02 AM
#35 Jeanette Garcia,
Don't forget the nice Chianti.
Posted by: oodiesmith
|
January 21, 2011 1:07 AM
Hmmm..Hoping for a steak tonight.
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
January 21, 2011 1:10 AM
Katrina is right. Dogs can survive sorta, kinda on a vegetarian diet.
Cats simply cannot. For one thing, vegetables do not have taurine. Cats cannot synthesize it and will go blind and die without it.
Their short kitty digestive tracts are lousy at digesting vegetable.
It's just a bad idea.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
January 21, 2011 5:08 AM
Hmmm... they missed one.
- Erwin Schrodinger.
Ah physics, the language of love.
(One year, for her birthday I bought my wife one of those "Schrodingers cat is dead/Schrodingers cat is not dead" t-shirts. I thought it was cute. She has never forgiven me for it.)
Posted by: Tom
|
January 21, 2011 5:10 AM
Aaaah Valentines day - the day the world sends pictures of glandes and pretends they are hearts.
I glans it!
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
January 21, 2011 5:25 AM
"The girls wants to convert the cats to vegetarianism"
Alas, cats cannot produce taurin on their own, so they are obligate carnivores. You would have to do some genetic engineering to save them from dying from malnutrition. And convert their teeth into shapes useful for veggie chewing, while the gastrointestinal tract would need even further changes.
--- --- --- --- ---
We call it "alla hjärtans dag" in Swedish.
"Valentine's Day" is something associated with machine guns and gangsters.
Hey, wait a minute! That is actually cool.
--- --- --- ---
What day would be appropriate for ripping apart and ingesting the souls of mortals?
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
January 21, 2011 5:35 AM
Yes, I'm hoping the bit about the women wanting to convert the cats to vegetarianism is a joke, but if not, please explain "obligate carnivore" to them and that it would be animal cruelty to try to work around that fact.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
January 21, 2011 5:35 AM
@ Pinkydead
I rarely get Valentine's Day gifts from my hubby of 31 years. I reckon it is fewer than five. One year it was a single red rose - for the watering can. Another year it was a single white rose - a ceiling rose, to repair the bedroom light fitting. :-/
Your t-shirt would have been an improvement!
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 21, 2011 5:57 AM
Old saying: "Love is a matter of chemistry; sex is a matter of physics."
Nope. Speaking as a physicist, both are matters of psychology.
Hint: If you think sex is just damped harmonic oscillation, yer doin' it wrong.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 21, 2011 6:03 AM
Uh... I thought Valentine's Day is February 14th, which is no less than 3 weeks from now?
So it's not just on the Simpsons? Little American children are forced to pretend they're in love, at an age when love is considered an automatic trigger for ridicule?
That's cruel.
Link doesn't work. :-(
All hearts' day, like all saints' day?
Posted by: Mithy, Imperial Britannic Overlord & Tea Drinker
|
January 21, 2011 6:38 AM
Oh, all right, physicists are all dorks anyway. Go ahead and get your beloved a goofy card with some math nerd on it.
That's fighting talk, Myers! I'll see you in the playground at lunchtime!
But physicists include astronomers and astronomers gaze at stars and everyone knows that star gazing is incredibly romantic.
Oh yes. Especially when you talk about the history and culture behind star/constellation names. But a bit awkward when you want her/him to see stuff and its below freezing outside.
Hint: If you think sex is just damped harmonic oscillation, yer doin' it wrong.
I'm thinking more of a quantum system with entanglement & tunnelling *after* decoherence.
Posted by: emastro
|
January 21, 2011 7:03 AM
In Italy, and especially in the South, where I grew up, 30 years ago there was still a strong gender bias in the choice of courses. Physics, like Engineering, was "gor guys" and Biology was "for girls".
I remember practically nothing of my 3rd year lab course because it was at the same time as the physics lab course for the Biology students in the next lab (the large one). 20 male Physics students separated from about 120 Biology students, 110 of whom were female, only by a thin wall with two doors (both doors were "stolen" by unknown parties two weeks into the course).
Absolute bliss. That's where I found that love, both spiritual and carnal, is perfect when it's the union of physics and biology. Which is why I married a molecular biologist-turned-zoologist.
Posted by: dnebdal.myopenid.com
|
January 21, 2011 7:15 AM
@David Marjanović:
Yep, "all hearts' day" looks right to me.
I'm not sure if the Swedes have been observing it longer than us Norwegians, or if they're just more keen on localization - but it's apparently "Valentinsdagen" ("the Valentine day") in Norwegian, with "alle hjerters dag" as a less common alternative.
Posted by: Dancaban
|
January 21, 2011 7:18 AM
Black pudding?
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
January 21, 2011 7:21 AM
Mmmmm… black pudding…
Now that would be a great gift!
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 21, 2011 7:53 AM
#25 - Best. Cuttlefish. Ever. Rapturous applause.
One question though -
Never heard that one before - intriguing. Got a cite?
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
January 21, 2011 7:56 AM
"So it's not just on the Simpsons?"
I wish South Park would make a Valentine's Day special. With a guest appearence of Jason (on account of the heart/viscera stuff).
Or let's make a Valentine's Day themed remake of "Split Second" with Rutger Hauer. Lots of hearts ...in a very real sense. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105459/
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
January 21, 2011 8:11 AM
"To outmaneuver parasites"
Parasites -including virus and bacteria- can reproduce quickly. To avoid extinction, the host organisms need a genetic makeup that make them resistant (like Australian rabbits and the myxomatosis virus).
The fastest way is to recombine genes sexually, making resistence genes spread through the population.
Parthogenesis may avoid sour marriages, but a few generations down the line you would succumb to all kinds of crap (bacteria and virus out-mutate the body's defences eventually).
Posted by: Epinephrine
|
January 21, 2011 8:24 AM
I gave my wife a copy of this card a couple of years ago. One of my favourites, and features a biologist of some note.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
January 21, 2011 8:34 AM
But, SGBM, I thought... *le gasp* I thought you dissaproved of blatant and tasteless sexual remarks!
Posted by: Harry Tuttle
|
January 21, 2011 9:29 AM
What day would be appropriate for ripping apart and ingesting the souls of mortals?
Sunday.
Man, absolutely no love for Geologists here. I want to get a Janet Watson v-day card.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 21, 2011 10:37 AM
Thanks, Birger Johannson @#64-- that is exactly the phenomenon!
Gotta love a site where a question about a love poem gets an accurate scientific answer, not from the author, within 20 minutes!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 21, 2011 10:39 AM
j-brisby: next time consider a little foreplay first. ;)
Posted by: Andyo
|
January 21, 2011 10:40 AM
"Cum"?
The whole tenor of this conversation is completely out of keeping with contemporary mores.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 21, 2011 10:49 AM
Upon thought... my own answer was going to be slightly different. The parasites (again, including but not limited to bacteria & viruses) living in Mom-organism have a substantial chunk of her lifetime (all that up until she gives birth) for their population to adapt to her immune system. If she gives birth to a genetically identical offspring, the parasites she passes along to her kid will have a head start, with that much adaptation already in hand (or flagellum). In an arms race like this, the parasites are becoming better adapted while the host remains static. Shuffle the deck a bit, mix the genes up, give birth to offspring with a brand new (ok, at least substantially different) immune system, and the parasites are back to square one with each host generation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC53943/
Cool thing is, parasites can also use sexual reproduction as a way of finding chinks in the armor of hostile hosts:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7F-4N9P4S8-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1615325543&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=02186a1c3a52d28799795b93acc187a2&searchtype=a
(my apologies for lack of html ability)
Posted by: KillJoy
|
January 21, 2011 10:50 AM
Oh PZ. Poor biologists always left out.
Maybe I will draw a Valentine's day card with you on it for all the biology lovers out there.
Got a better picture than the one used here on the blog? :P
KJ
Posted by: mwsletten
|
January 21, 2011 10:51 AM
janiceclanfield@20, "fresh beating ChristianHeart?" Aztecs? Are you advocating killing christians, or is this just metaphor?
Posted by: rob
|
January 21, 2011 10:57 AM
if physicists don't know much about sex, how did they got dozens of nations to fork out $9 billion for the large hardon collider?
Posted by: KillJoy
|
January 21, 2011 11:00 AM
"If physicists don't know much about sex, how did they got dozens of nations to fork out $9 billion for the large hardon collider?" - rob
Now that's my kind of research! XD
KJ
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
January 21, 2011 11:40 AM
@: mwsletten
Are you joking?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 21, 2011 1:57 PM
@Cuttlefish: f she gives birth to a genetically identical offspring, the parasites she passes along to her kid will have a head start, with that much adaptation already in hand (or flagellum). In an arms race like this, the parasites are becoming better adapted while the host remains static.
But that's teleological! You're implying that evolution somehow "knows" that it should pay the price know of diluting genes -- so that n-generations down the road, your descendants will have an advantage.
Besides, we know that species exist who have evolved parthenogenesis and continued for many generations -- it's not inevitable that parasites will out-adapt you.
Can't be that way. Sex doesn't make sense -- not in any model I've ever seen -- without modeling species level selection.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 21, 2011 2:06 PM
Birger Johanssen and Cutlefish, this non-biologist thanks you. Here I was all confuzzled by images of complicated athletic maneuvres to avoid bedbugs!
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 21, 2011 5:16 PM
Er, what? No it's not. All it implies is that it works.
Posted by: satansnickerelastic
|
January 21, 2011 5:25 PM
Valentines day is a loathsome pseudo holiday designed to make the single and unloved either suicidal or in my case fucking murderous. The world is full of replicating morons. Stupid slutty slags and their revolting dick headed bastard bully boy big balled midget brained partners for a night, copulating fulsomely without the wit in either case to prevent spreading disease or even worse, combining their sub standard genes to produce another generation of dumb little fuckers.
Goodnight sweethearts.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
January 21, 2011 6:31 PM
Have you tried using the postal service lately?(I keed, I keed.)
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
January 21, 2011 8:25 PM
#31
Tell the girls that it would be more merciful to take the cats outside and hit them on the head with a hammer. Petting and hugging something you are deliberately killing with malnutrition is just cruel.lads...
#31 rather be fishing
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 21, 2011 8:45 PM
re: Cuttlefish, Birger Johansson, frog, (and others),
It's the so-called 2-fold cost of sex conundrum. Not only does sexual reproduction only pass on half an organism's genes, but the organism needs to expend the resources to find a mate. Or to put it into simple numbers, for single cells (where sex must have first evolved), sexual reproduction requires 2 cells to merge, producing 1 offspring, while asexual reproduction allows those two cells to each divide, producing 4 offspring.
That's a 4:1 advantage for asexual reproduction right off the bat. In order to explain sex in selection terms, you have to find a benefit for sex that is so huge that it overrides a 4:1 initial cost outlay.
And that's a mystery that still has not been fully solved. The parasite theory and its variants is one of the leading contenders, but for it to be sufficient to explain the evolution of sex by itself would require an absolutely enormous burden of parasite related mortality, and it has been argued that the actual parasite burden in real life in most observed situations is actually not high enough.
It may turn out in the end that there are many advantages to sexual reproduction, none of which alone is sufficient, but in aggregate make sexual reproduction superior to asexual reproduction.
And then, at the end of the day, you still have to explain the bdelloid rotifers....
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 21, 2011 10:06 PM
Frog, dear...
Teleological? Not at all; you have read Darwin by now, have you not? Replication, variation, selection, and the appearance of intention is 'splained. As drbunsen says, "it works".
Amphiox--agreed, but I have never been a huge fan of single explanations; featherless bipeds seem to love them, but I prefer complexity. There are two separate possibilities in this thread already (from one line in a silly verse, no less!), and there are no doubt others. In addition, the twofold cost does not specify units; it is entirely possible that "expend[ing] the resources to find a mate" could either be prohibitive or trivial. Again, complexity. Kinda the message of the silly verse, actually.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/vbEXVRUjt_MMyvuDGgIv9ZpE6gZLU7TJI2yWvs7EeqT8bZ0-#0f000
|
January 22, 2011 7:17 AM
To you January 20 is "almost Valentine's Day"?
oh, PZ...
:(