Abbreviations University Students Should Be Using Volume II

Current mood: accomplished

It's A Wonderful Life (Or Lack Thereof) – Abbreviations II

Heaven - Epilogue

I think it's safe to say, I am floating in a sea full of mediocrity, splashing around in the waters of idiocricy and the only thing to grab onto to support myself in these icy currents is a floating plank of hypocrisy. I think it is also safe to say I'm about as fucked as Leonardo DiCaprio in the movie Titanic. The only option for me now is to go under, and present myself at the fiery gates of Hell for 8am roll call. Though all hope seems lost, and the prophecy that Jesus told me one sombre day at the Red Room is on the verge of actualisation, now might be my one chance to save logical human existence by sacrificing myself to better understand their state of mind when presenting lecturers and tutorials with IFQs and the much more dreaded IFSs. That's right, for a week, I will live like one of these turtle neck sweater wearing, mac book using, four eyed freaks that I swore I would never become, in an effort to better understand their culture and combat it in ways that no such being has ever been able to do. I feel as though I am strong enough to withstand the barrage of irrelevance, due to my strong mastery of the force and the sheer volume of white matter flowing through me. However, if I should yield to the dark side faster than Anakin Skywalker at a Mace Windu / hate crime bashing gathering, then I would ask for my body to be crushed and my soul to be freed from eternal fire and damnation associated with these 'iHumans.'

In Abbreviations I, I discussed the following abbreviations;

IFQ – Irrelevant Fucking Question
IFS – Irrelevant Fucking Statement

Over the several months since I first published this peer reviewed article, I have received barrels of feedback and queries associated with these terms. Such questions included what would or would not be considered irrelevant. I immediately ignored these queries because abbreviations I was aimed at students who were free from the shackles of idiocricy, therefore they should know in themselves what is or is not irrelevant. Those that do not, I'm sorry to say, lack the skills required to become an IFQ Hunter (One who hunts IFQ makers and neutralises them – or when less hostility is required, they are ostracised from the general public, and several logical student groups.

Other feedback I gathered came from those that aimed to undermine or underpin my abbreviations as 'insulting to the student body.' Insulting? Pardon me, but my definition of insulting greatly differs from yours. The reason for this is that your definition is wrong. What truly is insulting is having your mind ass raped by questions irrelevant to the course material. Insulting is also when people blurt out completely illogical questions to the lecturer, when they are trying to teach the class, and expect a logical reply. I find people who simply say "Mac's are better than PC's" without giving clear cut explanations as insulting. More importantly, there are far more insulting circumstances out there that correspond to the inner workings of human society, and those who fail to see that are just the people Jesus, Jeremy and I are trying to warn the world about.

My story begins with Jesus inviting Jeremy and I to his new vineyard for some wine testing. I am not much of a red wine drinker – Jesus can't get enough of the stuff – but I thought I should make an appearance to further discuss additions to the abbreviations I had laid out with him at the Red Room that drunken Thursday (student) night. Once the testing finished and the party had come to an end, Jesus cracked a bottle of the vintage Penfolds Grange 1990 by the fireplace, and commenced further discussion of what abbreviations could be included in volume two (we had to commence discussion without Jeremy as he was dressed in attire considered inappropriate dress code by Saint Peter, and thus was not allowed to enter through the gates of Heaven). We eventually settled on six new additions our 'bible.' These are;

RFQ – Relevant Fucking Question

Here's an example of an IFQ for those who still cannot comprehend this phenomenon…

Lecturer: "Explain the statement that a watch implies a watchmaker"
Student: "Could God create a stone that he himself cannot lift? No…so God doesn't exist. /end."
Me: "ahhh…IFQ."

Notice the lack of relevance to that question? Here's how it should have been done, and ultimately leads to a RFQ, a Relevant Fucking Question…

Lecturer: "Explain the statement that a watch implies a watchmaker"
Student: "Well…sir, it explains that design implies a designer. It is a classic argument for the existence of God. Though, I do have to ask, isn't it possible that something so intricate could be designed by a series of randomly generated yet naturally selected steps, not unlike the theory Richard Dawkins presented in his book The Blind Watchmaker?"
Me: "RFQ."

Yes, this indeed an example of a relevant question. It is relevant to the task material, and allows for further discussion of the topic between the lecturer and the students despite however, the student is about to receive a cold dose of pure ownage for his atheist beliefs and receive unfathomable amounts of criticism from his peers for being a Dawkins and presumably a Dennett fanboy.

Unfortunately not many RFQs are prominent in today's lecture system. They are becoming a dying breed, wiped out by the stupider, illogical and self-obsessed human being. Philosophers of Churchland's calibre are fast dying out, and are being replaced by incompetent fat bastards who look like Santa, giving the general public a poor representation of Philosophy as a bunch of crackpots sitting around thinking all day, over a nice glass of red (or maybe a cask of the cheapest goon available – as most philosophers don't have high paying jobs). Scientology is one fine example of philosophy gone wrong. This (somewhat) false representation of philosophers through scientology ends now.

Scientologists do not represent how a philosopher works. Here is the relevant way a philosopher goes about presenting and defending a theory (from my summary).

Alan Turing: "…If any Artificial Intelligence can master my appended version of the classic Imitation Game, then they can be seen to not exactly 'think' like humans do, but rather act like they are 'thinking.'
Cliff: "I'd just like to point out that I didn't read your paper, but a machine being able to think like a human…that's preposterous…"

Alan Turing: "Shut up Cliff…anybody else have any limitations to my theory?
Lady Lovelace: "A machine can never really do anything new. Machines are therefore incapable of independent learning."
Alan Turing: "Pwned by a woman? I don't fucking think so. Not especially one that shares the same surname as a famous porn star. If you were exposed to a broader knowledge of contemporary science then you would know that a computer's storage is actually quite similar to that of a human brain. In fact, computers could still have the ability to surprise humans where the consequences of different facts are not immediately recognisable. In the time that it took you to write that pathetic, feeble and easily pwnable argument, you could have baked me up a fucking awesome pie. Get back to the kitchen and do what you do best." (Don't blame me for the sexist comments, women didn't have as many rights back then as they do now…I'm pretty sure this is exactly how it would have played out back when this argument was officially owned back in the 1950s)
Lady Lovelace: "Looks like I better get back to doing porn…"

Notice how Turing actually attacked her theory, not the person. He presented his theory, asked for people to present any objections so that he could refute them, thus defending his theory. That is justification. That is philosophy. Succinct and completely relevant right down to the wire. Here are a list of 'philosophers' who do this that I have read:

Everyone except for Dennett.

Though I'd take Dennett over a Scientologist any day (I'd take suicide first actually, but let's say that's not an option). A Scientologist will not defend their theories. The reason for this is, get this, "…Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. You can get "reasonable about it" and lose…" and they also state that "…attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover…" I won't go into too much detail about this because it's been covered in a previous blog, readily available on my Myspace page called "Scientology The New Atheism (It's for idiots)" so when you're done with this, be sure to check that mother out. But here is an example of an irrelevant fictional philosophical debate, between L Ron Hubbard and I.

Me: "So…have you got any sort of logical reasoning behind why Scientology should be accepted as a relevant theory?"
L Ron Blubbard: "Ummm…You sir are a serial killer. Ahhh…I see here that you once drank alcohol that your parents gave to you whilst you were underage! I'll destroy you."
Me: "Sorry…but…huh? You have no defence do you?"
L Ron Blubbard: "People still believe in this shit. And it makes me an even richer fucken bastard! Mwhahaha!"
Me: "Hmmm…you sir…fail."

So where did that discussion go? Nowhere! In fact… they didn't even defend their reasoning behind why it should be accepted. He simply just flopped out their theory like a frank and a pair of salty balls and just expected the world to kneel before him and suck. I'm sorry but philosophy doesn't work that way. However, society seems to be heading down the illogical route which seems to be the leading reasoning behind why such blasphemy and cult gatherings still remain afloat. I will be going into more information about the decline in logic in society in the abbreviation LNF, later in this essay.

TC,NSTFU – Thanks Coach, Now Shut The Fuck Up

Tutor: "So in this course we will be using statistical methods you learned in second year stats such as t-tests, chi-square tests, regression and correlation as well as Main Effect…"
Older Female Student: "Ahh, sorry Richard but, the students did not learn Main Effect in second year stats. We learned it in third year stats. I did the course last semester and we learned about it for the first time then."
Tutor: "Oh right. Well…my mistake then."
Older Female Student: "No…that's quite alright. I just thought I'd make sure my peers understood what we are learning about up to my level."
Me: "Thanks coach…now shut the fuck up!"

Ok, first of all, you aren't my mentor. I've never looked up to you whilst attempting this course and I don't see you as what I aspire to be. Secondly…if you were so much better than me, why the FUCK are you doing the exact same course as me? I fail to understand how I should feel inadequate to you when you're learning exactly the same thing as me. Sure you might know some shit about third year stats. Congratulations, your mind is cluttered with more bullshit than an old woman's display cabinet (cause it's filled with teapots, or cuckoo clocks or other miscellaneous, useless bullshit these old people collect to take their minds off the fact that the sand in the hourglass that is their life has almost fallen through. You're in God's waiting room now bitch, and God don't wait for nobody with a fine china collection). If third year statistics was a pre-requisite to studying this course, then – ZOMG! – We probably would have had to take that course prior to attending this one. But oh noes, it's not a pre-requisite and we don't need to know it so…shut up bitch – you're just learning this shit like everybody else here, and that doesn't give you the right to talk down on us.

You'll find that a lot of the 'mature aged' students will be the main offenders of this 'mentor' style of "super-student." (Or uber-student) The reason they take on this self-appointed role is because they think that because they are old and that they have 'life experience' they think they know more about the course than the inexperienced students. If life experience is considered flipping meat patty's at burger king or mopping up someone's puke in a night club bathroom, then that's life experience I'd rather pass on. Or should I put it in a sentence that they would understand? "No. I do not want fries with that." Give me your knowledge, hold the experience. You're a student like the rest of us, so behave like the rest of us and shut up and learn.
MFTC – My Fucking Two Cents

Tutor: "Ok, so for this survey we're going to go around the room and get you to answer these questions. Remember, 1 means you strongly agree, 10 means you strongly disagree."
Student: "Ummm…sorry but, that's not how we did it in COGS1000. We actually circled 10 for strongly agree and 1 for strongly disagree. I think it's a much better system."
Tutor: "…ok. But we're doing it my way…"
Student: (to me) "I still say my way is better."
Me: *groan* "MFTC"

These are the people who think that within the river of shit that flows profusely from mouths, lies a nugget of knowledge that only he/she knows about and other people care about. These people also believe that we can't move on to some other topic until they've put forward their opinion or their knowledge on the topic. These people make me want to stick things smaller than my foot, inside my ear. They sit there, much like 'mature aged' students (and I do mean to put the quotation marks there…I'll get to explaining that later), with their brains aching with prior knowledge that somehow we don't know about (though we both do the same courses).

Now, it would be alright if they just stated something that continued the discussion of the topic, or maybe asked a question that continued the discussion of the topic. But oh no. They don't like doing that. These turd burglars enjoy rubbing in their level of knowledge in people's faces. It's just a shame they don't know too much about socialising. These are the sorts of people who generally have the last word in conversations (and not in that "you got pwned" good way). They are the people that come along, in their turtle neck sweaters and their wool beret things that look like tea cosy's, and state something slightly relevant to the conversation and then finish it. An awkward silence ensues. Not to sound sexist, but women are the worst offenders of the MFTC theory. Consider this second example of how a MFTC could arise in everyday university dialogue and try and pick the offender.

Student 1: "So hey, I just saw The Dark Knight the other day.
Student 2: "Oh wow! Awesome…what did you think?"
Student 1: "Yeah it was ok. Heath Ledger's performance was amazing. I wasn't much of a fan of Christian Bale as Batman though. He seemed to really take the whole raspy voice a little too far."
Student 2: "I agree. I just wanted to go up to him and just offer him a butter menthol or something…hahaha. The cinematography was also quite good too. What did you think?"
Student 1: "Yeah, that scene where Batman is on the bike and the camera chases him is quite cool."
Student 3: (just arrives) "Sorry, what movie is this?"
Student 2: "The Dark Knight"
Student 3: "Oh, I haven't seen that, but my friend has, and she says it's shit."

Thanks for your input, detective dipshit. I still fail to see what good that achieved in the grand scheme of things. First of all, The Dark Knight scored very positive reviews from a variety of critics, yet, just because your friend says it is shit means everyone should yield and state "Oh…wait…no…I was wrong about my review. My apologies…the movie was shit." In fact, your friend is the one who is wrong, and should ought to be shot (the friend is still in the stage where they think their opinion matters against a wide majority). Secondly, where did Student 3 hope her addition would lead the conversation? It was a dead end. The kind of dead end you'd see on the Highway to Hell. The conversation would go absolutely nowhere because the original two students spent at least 2 minutes discussing how much they liked the film and its subsequent strengths and weaknesses. I'm not too sure whether student 3 was dipping her toe in the water to see if the sharks would take a bite, or whether she just wanted to state her opinion because she wanted to be included in the conversation, or whether she was bored with the conversation cause it wasn't about her, but either reason, she still chirped in with utter bullshit that went nowhere, and thus, taking a leaf out of Dennett's book (or guidelines) for writing a philosophical essay.

RD – Redemption Denied

Lecturer: "So why do you think the poorer children drew the coins on their paper much larger than the richer children?"
Fat Sloth-Like Student: "I think it was because the poorer children don't see much money and therefore do not know the proper size of the coin compared to the richer children who probably have seen that amount of money more commonly"
Lecturer: "Ahhh…you're all very close…actually the answer is the disconnection between what they see and what they report. Maybe their emotions are not affecting how big they see the coin, but affecting how big they draw it."
Fat Sloth-Like Student: "Yeah…like…that's totally originally what I meant to say. Like the poorer kids don't see the coins that much and therefore their emotion of the coin being worth much more is evident in this disconnection."
Me: "Oh, but that's originally what you meant to say? Well why didn't you say it in the first place? RD, you got shot down like a black hawk."

I wish these types of people didn't exist. In words of Kylie Minogue, "if I could be so lucky." But unfortunately they do exist, as does Kylie Minogue, and the only way to combat these beasts of burden, is to annihilate their feelings of redemption after being brutally owned prior. It's like those two letters burn into the foreheads much like holy water mangles a heathen demon's face, sending those little devil spawn bitches straight back to the fiery depths of hell.

There's only one logical reason why these idiots still inhabit lecture theatres worldwide. They thrive on attention. They crave it much like our innate drives crave the graceful warmth of a chunky meat pie to the wild, sweaty passion of sexual intercourse. And what happens when you want something? That's right, it becomes your objective to obtain it. And that's what these little shit demons do in our lecture theatres. They give wrong answers, but crave the feeling of recognition a lecturer gives a student when they solve a complex problem. They want people to think "hey, that's the guy / girl who nailed that question about Quantum Physics in the lecture…I wanna be friends with them!" The saddest thing about that is the lecturer allows them to continue that glimmer of hope. They allow these pitiful creatures to save face, and sometimes they even have the nerve (maybe because they were once IFQ makers too) to congratulate them and somehow stretch their answer to the point of relevance where it isn't even their answer anymore, it just shares the use of the definitive article ( I am indeed a cunning linguist). Sometimes they even deceive them by saying "hey, you're on the right track…" when they are about as on the same track as Morgan Freeman's car (Man, I'm quick). Whether the lecturers are just being nice, or whether they are actually doing it to humour themselves, they are still reinforcing the behaviour and it's going to continue forever if they do not start punishing. Perhaps, at the start of each lecture, we could hook every student's head up to an electrical helmet that is plugged in to some electrical shocking machine, and the level of shock the student receives depends on how stupid their response is. So in extreme cases, it would be necessary to pump them with 240 volts of pure, unearthed, high voltage, rock and roll…I mean…electricity. Or maybe every seat in the lecture theatre could be converted into an electric chair and the students could be hooked up to that. This seems to be the only way we can punish these IFQ makers humanely but painfully without genocide with of course exceptions to those who frequently commit these atrocities. I, the leader for the People's Party For Party People hereby announce the installation of electric chairs in lecture theatres if elected. But don't just take my word for it, here's an actual image of what Jesus thought as soon as I offered this solution to him…

There you go, the holy thumbs up. Can't get any more prestigious than that.

LNF – Logic Not Found

Tutor: "Hey everyone, when you are typing out your diagnosis, you don't have to put what the patient's feel in quotation marks, BUT it does help for proof."
Me: "Umm…sorry…but if it does indeed help, why would you not do it in the first place? I'm sorry but…LNF."

In case you didn't read the above title, LNF stands for Logic Not Found, an increasingly common occurrence in tutorials and not to mention classrooms across Queensland. What is the cause behind people not using their logic? To answer that question, I'll need to do some further research, but for now let's look at the possible causes and offenders associated with this god awful phenomenon.

First of all, the main offenders are generally dickheads, with half a brain (if they're lucky to have been graced with one upon their emergence from their as equally as stupid birth mother - or from a more likely birth device: the Test Tube. This seems to be the only way to describe how they managed to get through their measly shit eating lives without the need or mental capacity for simple logic. Now that may be a little harsh, but… it's the only way to get through to some of these people (seeing as they lack the capacity to take logical constructive criticism as they think they are inscrutable). Common logic seems like some sort of ancient rune, like Citizen Kane to those 'wannabe movie critics.' You know the kind – "I am a lover of movies…ooohh but I hate black and white movies as the actors suck during that time period. Citizen Kane is a B&W movie? It would have to suck then." Here's another example of LNF:

I got on the bus today (and yes, I'm currently pissed off with bus drivers for the time being so I just had to vent my rage somewhere) and the bus driver was a complete kent. Yes, even more than usual. This isn't the first time I've had this bus driver, he's regularly been the driver on my routes to work. But this time, he was on the university bus today (at the time of writing this) and I knew it was the same guy who thwarts my enjoyment of bus trips, and my high opinion of the nice bus drivers that I am usually blessed with. He's like my arch nemesis, he's the Joker to my Batman (though if he knew me he would definitely see things the other way around). Anyway this prick decided, "hey it's national let's be a cunt to passengers day" and started raising some hell by telling people how to hold their tickets up to him, queue in a single file line, how to hail a bus and how to have their money ready for the bus while they are running for it. I was surprised I managed to enter through his portal to hell unscathed, but it didn't surprise me that some collided with some flak and debris on the way through. Past experiences with this bus driver have included an issue with my university student card (apparently it was NOT sufficient for a student ticket and instead I had to pay full price) which resulted in me asking for his bus number and his name in a non threatening and curious manner ('let's get this sorted out so we both know' kind of attitude) which he rudely took as a smart ass comment and shouted at me, "There! There's the bus number and my name is ____! Just ring up and they'll confirm what I said!" If I weren't in such a hurry I would have stood up for my rights…hang on…that's the crucial point right there. Rights. And that brings me back to the LNF example.

The first time I met that bus driver - that's right the time I explained above was the first time I met him – he wore a glorified badge on his shirt. Now what was proudly displayed on this glossy badge you ask? 'Your rights at work are worth fighting for.' Man how I wish that was a joke. But in all seriousness, he wore a, let's call them a 'Right's Badge', with pride and honour. Now this is where the logic is meant to come in…but unsurprisingly…it fails to enter. Here a bus driver sits, probably the only job involving customer service where you can act as rude as you like and still retain your job, and demands rights… I'm sorry, but isn't that the most ironic thing you've ever heard? It's probably even more ironic than having a fat sports psychology lecturer talk to people about how to motivate people to exercise, more ironic than having a statistics lecturer who can't say the word 'statistics' or state that 'statistics is not maths' and following that statement is a slide about BOMDAS or BODMAS or whatever the fuck they want to call it. It's even more ironic than having a lecturer who was nervous and anxious talk about anxiety disorders. Probably, it's even more ironic than a combination than the two. It's one of those "ZOMG my head is going to esplode (sic)' kind of ironies. Here's some rights for you Mr Bus Driver…the right to shut the hell up. Granted, most bus drivers are fantastic. I've had some pearlers and I have some very fond memories of some great bus drivers that stick with me in this evening of reflection. However, there have been some shockers. I once had a bus driver who clearly watched a nice looking lass run 100 metres to catch the bus to have him close the doors in her face and drive off as he laughed. The amount of times I've had drivers like that startles me. I've even had a driver give me wrong change before thinking I was drunk…which I gave him a right ass kicking about. I've even had a bus driver refusing to break a $5 note for a daily trip of $2.70 (he just let me on the bus for free in disgust and told me not to do it again). Yes so it's safe to say that bus drivers and I get on like a sitcom based on a KKK member and an African American basketball player rooming together. But the majority are actually ok. But still…to see that one kent of a bus driver treating me without rights, yet proudly fights for his own is stupidly absurd, and logically flawed. In times like this, it is indeed not only safe to say LNF, but expected and required.

LAMIKTL – Look At Me, I'm Keen To Learn

These fools are often called 'Keeners' (many props for Shaun for pointing that out for me) and they are one of the most annoying scum to penetrate ear drums at a university near you. People like this (and I hate to call these sewer rats people, but based on their biological structure I guess we have to refer to them as that) tend to ask questions to further develop a discussion in a lecture theatre, however, they ask it in a way that makes them seem like they are trying to show off to the rest of the lecture room. This deviates from the coach one because, they don't care about seeming like a coach or a mentor to the other more 'inadequate' students, they want to be noted as idols, gods amongst men and 'masters of their area of study.' Sometimes, these people will use words like 'exacerbate' in lectures for the hell of it, write out one hundred or so multiple choice questions for the rest of the class to use as revision. I'm not complaining about that at all, it's a great learning tool, and I would use it if I was ever in need of feeling like shit and nervous as fuck before an exam when I get every single question wrong. But there's a hidden, psychological egoism motive behind this. And here it is:

My favourite online blog (well one of my favourites) would have to be one by Maddox where he states that Christopher Reeve was a selfish prick. What he basically states in that wonderfully powerful and moving blog is that if Reeve wasn't suffering, then he wouldn't give a fuck about charity as he only started representing it after his accident. What Maddox has described here is the root of psychological egoism and has been on many ethical and moral debates and course overviews for many years. It's the refreshing drink of water that you need from such a dry subject. Now, let's apply it to this person who wrote out all these practice questions for the rest of the students to enjoy. Let's call her Lady Lovelace for the purpose of this debunking study. Now Lady Lovelace is a Quadkid…she has 4 kidneys. Wow, she must have really clean blood I hear you thinking. No! That's not relevant dammit! Anyway, when she's not making a shitload of profit on the black market for her two extra kidneys, and lying in bathtubs full of ice, she writes these questions on the university board forum for people to use as revision to study for their exam preparation. I should also mention that she is a part of the course as well, and reaffirms this by placing a "if any of the answers to these questions are wrong at the bottom of the page, reply in this thread with the correct answer and I will correct it." At first glance, it seems her intentions are highly altruistic. Something this society is lacking in.

However, we can draw many parallels from her actions to say that she is merely doing this for selfish reasons. Because she is a student of this course, she is writing out questions to help herself study for the exam. However she might realise, 'hey…what if I actually have some of this shit wrong?' So to help her out, she posts her questions and answers on the forum for all to use in the hope that the majority will read through her answers and fix any errors that are prevalent, if any. This seems like a pretty logical explanation and indeed it is a possibility. However, one could simply state that she could have easily researched the answers in the text book or online and got the correct answer from there if she needed to. Therefore her actions are in fact altruistic anyway. Whoa now, not so fast cowboy! There is just as easily another reason as there is another Star Wars movie coming out (though I must admit, it does look shit. An animated Star Wars movie…Lucas has completely lost it!). If Quadkid was really that caring about the well being of the psychology student's exam preparations by giving her answers out to the whole of the course, then why did she decide to keep the post with her name at the bottom instead of simply posting as anonymous? We'll get back to that a little later.

The mere fact that she is doing the course herself shows that psychological egoism is prevalent. In fact, to relate this back to the Christopher Reeve scenario Maddox pointed out, there would be no reason for her to post the questions and answers to a course that she wasn't doing because there would be no benefit for her to use it as a study tool and a place for further discussion. She could just as easily write up questions and answers for say, a course she completed last semester for people to use as revision. However, she does not. She chooses to do the questions for the course she is taking. So, what I am trying to say is that, there would be no benefit to her if she wrote up questions and answers for a course she has already done because she has completed it already and would not need the questions and answers for her university revision anyway.

Right, so we've now covered that plausible reason. With that pure pwnage we return to the paragraph before last. Why couldn't quadkid post as anonymous? Maybe she didn't know how, or didn't know she could? All plausible answers, but when it's fucking clear as day down the bottom of the post box there, it seems highly unlikely. No, she wanted to keep her name there so that she could be praised, or idolised or thanked for her effort. She didn't have to do what she did, but she did it anyway which is helpful for most people. However, she wanted to be known amongst her peers as 'that girl with the four kidneys' wait…no… let's try that again. She wanted to be known amongst her peers as 'that girl who posted questions and answers for exam revision for all to see.' Though you can't see her face with the post, if people are ever in a tutorial with her, and her name is called out on the roll, then people will instantly recognise her as that girl. And that's psychological egoism in a nutshell. With every action, there is a (most often hidden) selfish motive. For more information on the infallible psychological egoism, check out Wikipedia.

Finale – Earth

I awoke in a dumpster just inside the university campus. My head ached, and my shirt was laced with vomit and red wine stains. Man I HATE then Peter does that I think. Assuming Saint Peter kicked me out for being too rowdy. I pulled myself out and I felt slightly empowered. My head stopped hurting from the hangover and now ached with the sheer penetration of knowledge ravaging my brain cells like a cat in heat. I assumed that Jesus wanted me to deal with this list as I did with the other, share it with the world, and spread it mercilessly like an STD. If I can at least amuse people with my continuous prose then I'll have succeeded on so many levels. If I can at least help you change your own ways for the better, then I would have achieved much more. However, if you strike me down, then I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

As I hopped off the bus at the Cultural Centre at Southbank, I peered over to what looked to be two people making out in the corner. I peered over and saw them get even more into it. Then, they both turned around and one of them looked directly at me, with his glazed eyes, like a rabbit in headlights. Those down syndrome kids got sprung…by me. I think I vomited a little in my mouth. I peered up to the heavens, to see Jesus' smiling face looking back down. I smiled and caught the first 385 buz home to formulate Abbreviations University Students Should Be Using Volume II.


Now it wouldn’t be an Abbreviations blog without a further listing of the BSHI courses on offer at a University near you. It turns out the course co-ordinator Cliff has granted a greater volume of electives and opportunities for those pursuing a career in utter bullshit. Here are a list of courses on offer at University of Queensland.

BSHI3000 – Ownage Denial

Cliff takes this course for the first half, then Dennett enters as a special guest lecturer, outlining the ways to deny ownage and explain away several philosophical arguments. Materials required – a pencil, a piece of paper. No logic required. Assessment will require a film review on the uselessness of zombrez in today’s society.

BSHI3013 – Arguing without Logic

In earlier classes, you would have learned about the unimportance of logic in today’s society. In this course you will learn the basics about how to integrate utter stupidity into any course requiring logic. Assessment will include a verbal and visual presentation and an oral practical on knowledge and how it can not play a part in arguing philosophical points. To be partnered with BSHI3220.

BSHI3220 – Course Readings

In this course, you will learn how to argue philosophical points without reading the required materials. Students will receive a paper on Turing that they are not expected to read, and will have to argue to the class about how his Imitation Game does not compute (no pun intended). Points will be deducted for logic thought and reading the actual paper. Cliff bases this course on his own methods of philosophical debating.

BSHI3333 – Choose Your Own Path

Cliff aims to recreate the fun and adventure of the choose your own path books by teaching students a new way to learn, and ultimately win everytime. He teaches students to read through the pages chronologically, ignoring the plot twists and turns and directions. He also integrates his famous ‘Cliffism’ into the methods, stating that you can start from any page you like, as you don’t need prior knowledge or understanding of what happens in the past to make illogical and fucking annoying comments in tutorial classes.

Also Recommended – ZOMB1001
An elective course to further debunk the mysteries behind ‘teh zombrez’ and how they have no place in today’s explanation s of consciousness.

BSHI4000 – Dennett Philosophy
The essential honours course, lectured live online across thousands of universities worldwide by Dennett himself. He will teach you how to totally explain away a philosophical theory, and head off on wild tangents with examples from his book Consciousness Explained. He will also teach you the basics of attacking the straw man and get away with it, with people believing every word you speak. With a forward by Richard Dawkins. The assignment requires students to challenge a famous philosophical theory and misinterpret them using the techniques they learn from Dennett in this course, and write up a novel somehow linking your ‘proven theory’ to the non-existence of God. You lose marks for accurate analysis.

BSHI4210 – Introduction to Scientology
This course is only recommended for the richer ‘illogicalist.’ Assessment occurs after each lecture where you must donate at least $10,000 to the church of Scientology each week by 3pm Thursday. This makes up about 99.9% of the total assessment. The other .1% of assessment requires you to recreate the classic ‘couch jump’ made famous by Tom Cruise on the Oprah Winfrey show (the Oprah psychologists tend to perform well on this task). Marks are deducted for logical defence of the ‘religion’ and logical philosophical arguments and reasoning.

BSHI4312 – Atheism for Dummies
Another course lectured live online across thousands of universities, this time by celebrity philosopher Richard Dawkins. Dawkin’s teaches you how to be an atheist and deny plausible arguments against your theory as complete ‘religious bias.’ This course is also offered to 13 year old emo teens who don’t believe God exists because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them and they think ‘why me’ and believe they will never fall in love again. Also for young teens who think it’s cool to be an atheist because they’ve been individually opressed by religion in their family (without even considering the strong religious oppression yonks ago). Assessment requires you to burn as many copies of the bible as possible and to at least mate with another species to continue the mutation chain.

Vote for the People’s Party for Party People and help rid the world of IFQs and IFSs!

Peace out everyone. To those who I have graced with hilarious blogs over the last year, I bid thee farewell. It indeed has been a great writing experience, to which I owe Myspace blogs a large sum of credit. But I will no longer be writing blogs anymore *sniff.* To those that have laughed, to those that have cried, to those that have complained about how offensive I am – ordering me to, and I quote truthfully and in its enitirity, “Warn people about the offensive content in your blog...how would you like it if you were abused in that regard?” and especially to those that took it on the chin and appreciated it for the pisstake on society it really was...I salute you. I salute every one of you mother fuckers out there. Some day I will return...but for now – I’m takin’ it easy (and hiding from Scientologists). For now my work here is done. But it’s up to the People’s Party for Party People to continue the trend. Adios Amigos!
Uncle M-Cat