There is no music in hell, for all good music belongs to heaven. ~Brigham Young
Question #23215 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I wanted to comment on ID#23009, Sugar 'n Spice. I don't know how kosher it is to comment/advise other board questioners without being an official, but...

I don't know if this will help. But I had similar, crazy things happening to me healthwise and FINALLY found a doctor-a neurologist-who could tell me what was going on. It turned out my blood pressure was rapidly declining every time I stood up, and at the same time my heartbeat sped up like crazy to counteract and try to increase the blood pressure. So I was experiencing the dizziness, fainting, nausea, extreme headaches/migraines, and general feeling that something was extremely wrong with my body. The great thing is that there is medication you can take.

(I know you've seen a neurologist, but sometimes
if a doctor hasn't run across a certain case before, he/she might not recognize it.)

Have the doctor take a lying/sitting/standing blood pressure test as well as a heartbeat in all three positions and see if the data is different. I have a great doctor and could share the info if needed. Good luck!

- (Sapphire Fire)

Question #23125 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Which elevator on campus is probably the best for making out in?

- Probably Not Going to Use This Information

A: Dear Yeah Right,

The elevators in the ASB move pretty slowly, and that's what I've found to be key...

They also glide smoothly with no jerks at the end.

Yeah, I've had some experience in this matter.

A: Dear Surrrrrre,

Also see Board Question #15638 and Board Question #19515.

- Lavish
A: Dear Limber Lips,

If you're going to make out in an elevator, at least do it somewhere where there's a camera to record it. Those who pay their rent by watching all of the cameras on campus need to get their laughs somewhere...

the pirates (who don't do anything)
Question #23123 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania is constantly vascillating between an alliance with Eastasia or Eurasia. Never, from my reading, is Oceania having to fight off the combined forces of Eastasia and Eurasia. Why don't the two Asias unite against Oceania?

- Маniа

A: Dear Mania,

You have pointed out a very important and world-shattering fact: I still claim 1984 as one of my favorite books of all time... but I don't own a copy of it. Isn't that a travesty!

Anyways, on to your question. Seeing that I don't have a copy of the book with me, I will reference what I remember from my last reading and subsequent analysis.

At some point before Winston is arrested, I remember him having an off-hand thought about the wars. He wonders if the wars are even really happening. In fact, I think Orwell's point was that the wars were not really happening.

I think Orwell's point was that perpetual conflict is one of the best ways to maintain a placated populous. If someone were to write a new Dictatorship for Dummies book, conflict would be one of the most important parts of that 12 step program. When your people are focused on an external threat or conflict, it doesn't matter what the government is doing. Some people have accused the Bush Administration of using this principle... but I'll have to say that the war on terrorism is a little more real than Orwellian propaganda conflicts.

Take Syria for example. The Hafez al-Assad regime certified its power through a perpetual conflict with Israel. Even when the conflict wasn't really there, Al-Assad was always calling for a fight to regain the Golan Heights. Why? Because he could channel all the people's frustration toward an external threat... and he could get away with a reign of terror. In fact, my impression is that Syrians are still scared of Uncle Hafez... and he's been dead for five years now. His funny-looking son Bashar uses the same tactic: channel rage toward Israel. And thus the dictatorship continued.

Anyways, back to Orwell. The point is: the players, progress, or process of the conflict was unimportant. The government of that system needed a propaganda conflict to keep the people feeling threatened and distracted from greater issues of government. Eurasia and Eastasia would never combine to truly threaten Oceania. In fact, those two areas may not even exist.

I think that is Orwell's point.

That is all.

A: Dear Horatio, and also Mania,

With all due respect, I don't think that's what Orwell was trying to say at all.

The third point in Goldstein's book in 1984 was the tenet "war is peace." The war is most assuredly happening, although to no conclusion at all. The point of the war isn't to destroy one side or the other. As Orwell points out, the three superpowers could achieve essentially the same existence were they to agree to live in peace with each other. However, the three societies would then face the problem of disposing of their excess resources. Orwell says it better than I can, so I'll quote him for a bit here.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated plane compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly and efficient - a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete - was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the Nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process - by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute - the machine did greatly raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

The purpose of war is to keep the proletariat down. By expending all of the country's excess resources on the war, the poor stay poor. The rich stay rich. Orwell goes on to argue that if inequality were removed, the poor would gain wealth, become educated, and realize that the ruling minority aren't necessarily destined to be so and overthrow them. The constant warfare removes that possibility. War removes any threat of revolution, thus ensuring that "war is peace."

By that logic, it wouldn't really matter if Eurasia and Eastasia combined against Oceania. No one would win the war in any case. Orwell is making the point that the war is entirely irrelevant.

- Optimistic.
A: Dear Mania and Optimistic,

Optimistic brings up another side to the process of a war. I will still assert that Orwell tried to represent the psychological effects of a war. You're very right, the war is meant to keep the proletariat down. You point to the economic expenditures, I focused on the psychological.

They are two sides of the same problem: perpetual war is a very effective tool to keep a society in control.

I could now go into a long diatribe about Saddam Hussein's rise to power using war to suppress his own people... but I won't... this time.

That is (still) all.

Question #23122 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am seeking advice. In my past I had a rather persistent problem with pornography. I pray that I've put it behind me. I've discussed it with my Bishop and attend group sessions and have no intention of relapsing.

I have a girlfriend who is the sweetest girl in the world. I never want to hurt her. But at the same time I don't want to lose her. We've dated for quite some time and we both feel that we should get married. But I don't ever want to put her through the struggles a wife has when her husband is addicted.

I'm torn. I want to be completely honest with her, but I don't want to lose her. How could any girl love a guy with this past? Is this selfish of me? What should I do?


A: dear pasqua,

your situation is not unlike others. let me start out by saying that the woman that really loves you will understand where you have been and rather see who you are now. this doesn't mean that she has to like your past, but that she loves you for who she knows you to be now. while honesty might not always get the best results, your chances with honesty far outweight the burden of fear and guilt than can haunt you later in life.

a certain amount of trust has to be established in a relationship for it to function properly. this trust is of course earned, and holding back can be both good and bad depending on what the information is. what's important here is what she wants to know about you and your past. i would suggest giving her this option as then your responsibility is no longer to fret about your past, but to honor her and her wishes.

another important aspect is to make sure she knows where you are now with your problems past. by sharing this information with her, she is capable of becomming part of your support group. if you think about it, it is better to have her as one of your supporters rather than an outlier that you're afraid might someday find out.

your fears are shared by many others: we men want to be the best that we can for our women. let me tell you that there are women out there who are both very understanding and forgiving. your girlfriend, if she already feels drawn to marrying you, will probably understand and continue to love you for who you are now, and not focus on your past mistakes. giving her this chance to understand you better is a great opportunity to strengthen an already strong relationship. be tactful and aware of her feelings, and this could be a very positive experience for the both of you.

A: Pasqua,

You have done well thus far with coming to terms with a past you dislike. It is hard to do, so kudos to you!

To always keep your marriage strong, you have to make the commitment to never put yourself in degrating situations again. It's hard in our day where smut and sleaze is advertised as an art and a beautiful thing. It is not.

Some great ways to avoid pornography are to always keep yourself busy and to only be online for necessary things. Televisions, radios, computers and phones all have power buttons. Books can be tossed. Inappropiate DVD's can be scratched. I had one bishop who was fond of telling the ward that when he went on business trips, he left the laptop at home. The temptations are too great, and too many people fall due to pornography's influence.

If you were to tell this woman you are dating, you will probably be surprised by her reaction. I would almost gather that she would be very supportive! She might even be willing to help you always avoid it (appropiately, I am sure. She wouldn't pry unless you invited her).

If she isn't a person who can be trusted with these kind of regrets and misgivings, maybe she isn't the right person to give your whole heart unto? If you've determined that she is a person who will support you no matter what may happen, then telling her this will only cause her to trust you more, not less.

However, be sure that you have repented completely of this addiction. That may mean turning the internet off in your house, etc. That is up to you, how you avoid it.

My friend, God wants the best for you, and that includes a loving family where Satan has no strength. If she supports you and doesn't run away, that shows she wants the same thing.

You are not the first nor the last to be in this situation. Remember that no matter what</I> happens, life goes on and finds a way.

God Bless You,
-Mrs. Motionite
Question #23121 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is a "van card", and if i were interested in getting one, how would I go about that?

-Your friendly neighborhood chauffeur

A: Dear chauffeur,

Well, BYU wants to make sure that everyone on campus who drives a van, whether it is a minivan or an extended van, knows how to drive one safely. They do differ a bit from driving a Dodge Neon. So to make sure that those drivers know what they are doing, the University requires you to have a "van card" to be eligible to drive a van owned by BYU.

If you really want one, call Doug Walters at 422-4896 and check out for more information, including a schedule of when the classes are offered.

-Rafe, who needs to get his card renewed in not too long.
Question #23119 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Whatever happened to putting in a room in the library where one can eat? It was to be a room with tables, chairs, microwaves, and vending machines- at least that's the way I invisioned it. I remember reading about it in the paper about 2 years ago. I'm so tired of going down to the atrium and eating on my lap like a loser.

- Hungry Nerd

A: Dear Hungry Nerd,

I have never heard of this policy, and am honestly rather skeptical that the Library was ever going to build a snack area, seeing that you're not supposed to eat there in the first place. Deeming the eventual proximity of food crumbs to Special Collections (the lowest level of the Atrium), I am mildly surprised that you publicly announce that you have been eating in a place where gathering crumbs, and hence book-eating insects is tantamount to Colonial Heresy!

That being said, I pop a honey stick in the UVRFHC when my sugar levels are low, only to find that they continue to be low after about a 15-minute high.

So, no, I don't think they're going to give you a lunch room any time soon, and b) Hard to believe that I admitted my own bad habit ... probably even worse than crumbs! in such a public forum.

Here's to keeping around pages from the original Gutenberg Bible for another year! (Yes, they have that in SC.)

Lady Last Line
Closet Archivist with Bad Manners
Question #23117 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

As I was watching the Olympic ski jumping competition the other day, I noticed that on the end of the track (where the competitors were slowing down after jumping) there were what looked like leaves or bits of grass or something on the snow. What was I seeing, and where did it come from?

- pippin galadriel moonchild

A: Dear pgm,

The landing areas on a ski jump are often littered with pine boughs and other dark stuff. The dark forms on the snow help give the jumpers perspective.

When you look at a white slope, it is very easy to lose contour, especially in certain types of light. For example, skiiers often talk about "flat light." On overcast days, it is almost impossible to see contours on the hill ahead of you. So, a mogul or rut can catch you by surprise because you can't see the shadow.

The same thing happens with ski jumps. The darker forms let the ski jumpers see the landing... so they know when to drop and they don't crash.

That is all.

Horatio the Ski Jumper (but not quite that big)
A: Dear P.G.M.

I once saw ski-jumping. It was cool.

-Random Uselessness
Question #23116 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is your favorite place to study in the library, and why?

- libraryaholic

A: Dear libraryaholic,

I don't usually study in the library, but when I do: Second Floor by the Science reference tables.

-la bamba
A: Dear holic,

I avoid studying in the library like a plague. The seats are uncomfortable, and I think the people walking around (or even worse, whispering a bad pick-up line) are more distracting than the stuff around my desk at home.

So, my favorite place in the library to study is anywhere but the library.

That is all.

A: Dear libraryholic,

The periodicals reading room, hands down. I miss that place terribly. Also, I liked the tables on the 5th floor (north or south wings).

- Katya
A: Dear HBLL-Addicted,

I'm with Horatio. I never study in the library, but that's because I'm lucky enough to work in an office that is quiet and comfortable with a great view and my own computer. That's where I study, if not at home.

A: Dear Member of HBLL anonymous,

My locker is on the south side of the first floor so I almost always study there. My cell phone also can't pick up a signal there which is an added bonus. I sure hope this helps. Please don't hate me.

-- Brutus
A: Dear libraryaholic,

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Or maybe just glare at you, wishing you dead, when I find you sitting in or near one of my favorite spots.

(I'm a libraryholic too. Can you tell?)

Question #23114 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a serous addition to those stupid rise crispy square at Suger'n Spice. Holly Bear! I can't stop! I have to eat at least one a week or else my brain will discontinue. The ghastly horrific part is how much they cost. 99cents!?! You know it only cost them a nickel make a hole batch. I've tried other square but they just don't compare to that that perfect combination of mello and crunch. I'm usually so good at avoiding yummy food. I've only purchases one Jammba Juice my entire life. I've never even take a sip of that famous chocolate milk. What I need from you is a reason to quit. Can you find some law or scripture that would prohibit me from purchasing those devastately delectable desserts?

-Lisa craving crispy Stoffer

A: Lisa,

Bad News: 2 Ne. 9: 51

Happy Munching
A: Dear Lisa,

Give them up for Lent. (Mar. 1 - Apr. 8, 2006)

- Katya
A: Dear Lisa,

I wouldn't call "once a week" exactly out of control. Starting your day with a nice, cold Diet Coke in the shower, now there's a problem (not that I'm quite there yet).

The reason to stop is going to be like the reason to stick to a diet, finish a boring book, or go to the gym: you understand the benefits and sacrificing whatever comes between you and accomplishing these goals is pleasing to you. This could be problematic for you since, like I said, spending $0.99 once a week for a treat is not exactly Betty Ford Clinic-worthy behavior and you don't have a junk food problem either.

So, lacking a real reason but wanting to stop, I would suggest you not carry money around with you.

-la bamba
Question #23113 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A few years back I took Rel. 121 and 122. I had a professor that I considered a little too right (even for a religion professor). He told the class a few things that I thought were hokey and I wanted the Boards opinion. I need to preface this and say that I'm not LDS, so I may be taking things out of context.

One thing he told us regarded people who are mentally handicapped to the point of being unaccountable for their actions. He said that in the preexistence these people were God's favorites and that he didn't want them being tempted or corrupted by Satan so he made them mentally handicapped. I remember him also telling us (during a different lecture) that free will was the greatest gift God gave us. Why would God deny the greatest gift to his favorite children? I emailed said professor about this and never received a response.

Another thing that really stands out in my mind was the time he told us that being African America is considered the mark of Cain. I was completely shocked when he said that and was relieved to see that no one of African descent was in the class. This seems rather extreme and I don't think that's church doctrine, but what do I know? So my question is where did he get that idea?

He even once showed us a picture of a dinosaur footprint next to a footprint of a man as proof that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time. I know for a fact that the particular photo he displayed in class was proven to be hoax way before the class even started.

- Not the mama

A: Dear not the mama,

Unfortunately, there seem to be a number of religion professors here at BYU who think they are teaching "The Gospel according to Me". If you take classes from certain professors, you will hear ideas like these that are not Church doctrine. It's one of the main problems with religious education at BYU, in my opinion.

As far as mentally handicapped people go, I don't think there is any actual Church doctrine on why people suffer from mental handicaps. However, the idea that such people were God's favorites in the pre-existence makes little sense to me. Why would God choose to "bless" his favorite children with mental handicaps? In fact, I don't think that the physical condition of our bodies on Earth has anything at all to do with what happened in the pre-existence.

With regard to the pseudo-doctrine of the mark of Cain, the professor is wrong. This is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Church. However, it is something that some Church leaders taught in the past. Before 1978, when blacks were allowed to hold the priesthood, various people came up with justifications as to why that was the case. The idea of the "mark of Cain" was one of these, claiming that all blacks are marked as evil because they are descendants of Cain. Now, not only does this not make sense historically, but it is also a very racist idea. Unfortunately, that did not stop its being spread among Church members. For a recent discussion of this topic on an LDS-related blog, see

As for dinosaurs and humans co-existing, well, it's another idea that doesn't really make sense. The picture you are referring to is indeed a hoax. For a recent question I answered on this topic, see Board Question #22881.

Personally, I would be skeptical of claims like the ones you mentioned which seem too outlandish to be true. Usually, they are. It's too bad that these are so common in the religious world.

Question #23111 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is under Gavin Degraw's hat?

- Uncle Karl

A: Dear Uncle Karl,

His head, hopefully. To which picture are you referring?

Lady Last Line
A: Dear UK (not United Kingdom),

Apparently it functions as a sort of security blanket. Fans have tried to take his hats off of his head to no avail. The key, methinks, lies in the lyrics of his song "Close Up":

"But, baby everybody's always said I had eyes behind my hat"

Eh?Eh? I guess it's eyes...and we seem to have found an affirmative answer to THIS question: Board Question #22221

-la bamba
Question #23110 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I just read today's question about sister missionaries attempting to run their car on water.

Is that story actually true, or is it just a Mormon myth? I've heard it from so many secondhand sources lately that I'm beginning to doubt it's authenticity.

- Tess

A: Dear Tess,

You are, of course, referring to Board Question #22999.

My strong impression is: Yes... that sounds like a classic Mormon Myth. My first doubt came when the President was named "Robert E. Lee." Beyond that, I have no evidence to prove that it really did happen. So, I doubt the story's authenticity.

Even so, despite my doubts, I decided to answer it like it really happened. I'm sure someone, somewhere did something stupid like that... and decided to leave the church.

Anyways, thanks for pointing that out.

That is all.

Horatio the Mormon Myth Buster
Question #23109 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A few observations:

- At one point in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown, exasperated with Lucy, knocks his head against a tree.

- This morning while I was sitting in traffic thinking about a frustrating situation I've been thrown into that I'm not sure how to handle, my instinct was to bang my head back against my headrest several times.

- When people do or say something stupid, or sometimes just see someone else do or say something stupid, they often hit their hand against their forehead.

So my question is, why do we do this? Why hit our head? Where in the world does this instinct come from?

- Maddie H.

A: Dear Mad Hatter,

I hope that you're not asking for a scientific answer, cause you're not getting one from me.

I'd have to say that after the Stone Age (see the Flintstones for further commentaries), mankind figured out that if you cut off a person's head, they stopped living. Now, if you do that with other bodily organs, but you cauterize them (excepting with the trunk, of course) you can still live. So, what right has the orb above our hearts have to choose what's best for us? Well, we seem to think so...

There a mysterious little dichotomy between the head and the heart misunderstood by most of the known world. Within that dichotomy there is an axiom relating to the coordination between the two. Hitting one's heart tends to do nothing but make your chest hurt. Hitting one's head tends to disrupt your thinking patterns. Because the head is further dislocated from the body to it center than the heart, and there is that little "handle" called a neck, why not give something a yank if you are dissatisfied with it? (male anatomy excepted)

So, there you go... either yanked, prodded, or generally hit, if humans are dissatisfied with themselves, they do the kiddie thing where they simply say, "Forget ya'll" and try to do just that.

From A Strange Duck,

Lady Last Line
PS. Anything I say cannot be used against me in a court of law. Only for me.:)
Question #23108 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Why didn't John the Baptist baptize Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? I mean, if he had a body so that he could do the laying on of hands, why couldn't he have also used that body to baptize instead of them baptizing each other? Are there any comments on this by general authorities?

- Dunkin

A: Dear Dunkin',

Allow me to illustrate my point here by telling a different and seemingly unrelated story.

Picture with me, if you will, the moment where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. He stands outside the tomb and calls out, "Lazarus, come forth." Lazarus obediently comes forth, tangled in a mass of grave clothes. The Savior's next words are "loose him." Surely one who can call a man back from the dead could have used those same powers to remove the grave clothes. However, He didn't. He allowed those present to do it.

The Savior does for us what we can't do for ourselves. He allows us - and expects us - to do for ourselves what we are capable of doing for ourselves. I believe the case of John the Baptist restoring the priesthood was exactly the same. He certainly could have baptized Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. He didn't, however, because they were perfectly capable of doing so on their own. He allowed them to do so. They weren't capable of ordaining themselves to the priesthood, and thus he did so for them.

This is a principle of self-action that appears over and over again in LDS theology. The purpose of our being here is to provide us chances to act for ourselves. That's the most direct method of progression.

- Optimistic.
Question #23107 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,
Besides the scriptures and the basic missionary library, what are your five favorite church books?

A: Dear Mockingbird,

Jesus the Christ, any/all Nibley.

-la bamba
A: Dear Mockingbird,

That definitely depends on what you consider a "church book." On the conservative side, I'd say Standing for Something and Isaiah : Prophet, seer and poet. And I like what I've read of Joseph Smith : Rough stone rolling.

See also Board Question #14677.

- Katya
A: Dear Bird,

If these qualify as church books:

No One Can Take Your Place by Sheri Dew
A Quiet Heart by Patricia Holland
The Holy Temple by Elder Packer
And basically all of the BYU Women's Conference books.

A: Dear Mockingbird,

In order:

5. The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels
4. The Holy Qur'an
3. The Bhagavad Gita
2. The Sickness Unto Death by Soren Kierkegaard.
1. The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius

Oh, "church books" you probably meant books published by the Church, not books I've read in church.

Oops. Nevermind.

A: Dear Mockingbird,

~Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion.
~B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity
~anything by Chieko Okazaki.
~The Backslider by Levi Peterson*

-A. A. Melyngoch

*I know, it probably doesn't fit your definition, but it's certainly my favorite book written by a Mormon.
Question #23105 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Grammar question:
If I'm taking about something that belongs to someone, and then I want to include a parenthecical phrase about that person, how would I write it?
Joe (my brother)'s baseball or
Joe's (my brother) baseball
or something completely different?

- dexter's lab wannabe

A: Dear DLW,

Joe (my brother's) baseball

I wish I could have the rest of the sentence to put this into context. Might re-phrase the entire thing since it is relatively awkward, and you might want to put down a sentence about him being your brother before it gets to the baseball part.

Aimlessly trying to help,
Lady Last Line
A: Wannabananana

How about using "My brother Joe's Baseball?"

Happy Writing, you writing fiend you,
A: Dear dexter's lab wannabe,
Axe the parenthesis. I'd try to rephrase it somehow, because frankly the way you are writing it makes it seem like Joe is the name of the baseball.
A: Dear dexter's lab wannabe,

Any good editor* would just rephrase the main clause a relative clause:

"Joe, my brother, has a baseball which . . ."

unless they had already taken Motionite's suggestion, which might even be better.

-A. A. Melyngoch

*practically an invitation for Ambrosia or The Amazing Squirrel Boy not to mention Duchess to send me hate-comments . . .
Question #23104 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Where are there LDS branches located in the Middle East? I have tried looking at the church website but I could not find references to any in the Middle East but I know that there are branches in Amman, Cairo, and Tel Aviv. I am considering working in the Middle East but I would like to work where there is an LDS branch. I would particularly like to know whether there is one in the UAE and in Lebanon.

- Anonymous

A: Dear You,

Did you try going to ?

I found the Dubai Ward in UAE and there are others listed by city under the country tabs. Click on "Worship with us". Good luck!

-la bamba
A: Dear Anon Anon,

Any branches functioning in the gulf area are expatriate branches without any natives. You can check on those branches through

The Middle East District of the church includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Because these are sensitive areas, the Church does not publish meeting times or locations... so you have to go on a full-fledged search operation to learn about them.

I know about most of the units in the district. If you have a good reason to know, feel free to e-mail me: horatiotastic (at) gmail (dot) com and I can put you in touch with someone in the Middle East District who can help you with those countries.

That is all.

Horatio the World Traveller
Question #23102 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Sometimes when I look at moving ceiling fans, car wheels, carriage wheels or the like, it sometimes appears that the wheel (or fan) is moving backwards from the direction I KNOW it should be moving in. Why does that happen?

- The Wheels On The Bus Go Round And Round But Backwards

A: Dear Round, Round, Round,

I love questions that I just know the answer to. It really makes me feel smart.

This is an optical illusion, similar to the rubber pencil magic trick we all showed our mommies growing up. I've tried explaining this several times and I think that it is easiest to include a diagram. Please note that the pink dot is not part of the rotating objects, but is simply included as a reference to show direction of rotation.

<IMG SRC="">

Basically when an object spins really fast your brain cannot keep up with each individual piece as it spins so it computes what it can. In the diagram this person's brain is able to "see" every 3/8th of a spin which it perceives as being 1/8th of a spin in the reverse. As the series continues the actual rotation continues to be in the clockwise direction, while the person viewing it (because their brain can only make a computation of the image every 3/8ths rotation) perceives the rotation to be in the counter-clockwise direction. Our brains work in the same way. We perceive as fast as it can compute objects so as an object rotates at a certain speed we perceive the object to be rotating in the reverse. I know that when I notice this illusion the forward spinning parts look like a blur, but what I perceive to be going backwards is a fairly clear part moving against the forward rotation. Just think of the rubber pencil trick. As a pencil wobbles up and down our brain sees only certain points of the movement making a solid pencil appear to be made of rubber. Well I sure hope this helps. Please don't hate me.

-- Brutus
A: Dear Wheels on the Bus,

See also Board Question #20329.

- Katya
Question #23095 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

i was having a discussion with my friends and we were debating about frost...does the temperature have to be below 32 degrees for frost to form, and how does frost form in reference to temperature?


A: Dear frosty,

You need two things for frost to form: you need water, and you need for it to freeze.

There are circumstances under which water will freeze above 32 degrees, such as when it is under high pressure. However, this isn't likely to occur outside on your lawn or on your car, so we'll discount that possibility.

The other situation that you need is for water to condense. There is always some water vapor present in the air. In order for that vapor to condense (in the form of rain, snow, dew or frost), the temperature has to fall below the dew point. For a fuller explanation of the dew point, see Board Question #10580. Briefly, the air at a given temperature can only hold so much water, and if the air is already holding almost as much as it can (i.e. the humidity is very high) and the temperature drops a bit, some of that water will fall out of the air, forming condensation or precipitation.

So, can you have frost above 32 degrees? No. You can have condensation in the form of dew, but it won't freeze. (Bear in mind that it's only the temperature near your lawn or your car that has to fall below 32 degrees. A thermometer on a window or on a roof might not register that low a temperature.)

Can you have frost at 32 degrees? Sure, if you've already got dew, but if the air doesn't have much humidity in it to begin with, a freezing temperature won't necessarily bring frost.

Can you have frost form at 32 degrees or below? Yep. If the air is so dry that the dew point is below 32 degrees, it is called the "frost point," and when you reach that point you can have water vapor turn directly into frost without going through an intermediate liquid phase. It's called "deposition." Again, if the air is dry enough, even these temperatures won't lead to frost.

Interesting stuff,

- the physics chick
Question #23026 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is flavored water (like the Dasani lemon water) as healthful for you as normal water? Is it as hydrating and as good for your system?

- Parched

A: Dear Parched:

Well, I was pleasantly surprised by the answer of this question. When looking at a Dasani Lemon Water bottle, the main ingredient in water, so yes, it is as "healthful and hydrating" for you as regular water because it is. . .water. However, it has additives in it. So, if your definition of "healthful" is all natural and no additives then it's not as healthy as regular water. The flavoring is essentially citric acid or lemon juice. The Dasani Water is nothing like gatorade or powerade, which have different properties. It's just basically water, with a kick.

Kick it up a notch! Hooray for being well hydrated.

Question #23013 posted on 02/18/2006 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I know you aren't doctors, but I don't want to be diagnosed, I just want to know if this is common.
Last time I hiked the Y my chest hurt really bad and my mouth had a metal-blood like taste. My roommate said it was my lung's reaction to the cold, or something. Today I went running in the Fieldhouse, where it is warm, and the same thing happened again.
Has this type of thing happened to any of ya'll?


A: Dear Fruitsalad,

This also happens to me, and while it has never been overly bothersome, I have always wondered why, so thank you for asking this question. Here are some things that I hypothesized...

1. Maybe exercise induces the release of metal ions into the saliva, causing you to taste that oh-so metallic taste. Turns out there is no evidence of this...

2. Maybe increased blood flow to the tongue causes the taste-buds to be hypersensitive to tastes already present... also no evidence to support this.

So as I did my research, I found many websites that talk about Exercise Induced Anaphylaxis. I have also been curious about this. It turns out one of the most common causes of metallic taste in the mouth is that of a mild allergic reaction. This is seen sometimes in response to exercise, your body can begin to have an allergic reaction to it. It turns out a brother-in-law of mine had a rather serious allergic reaction in response to the heavy workout that my brother and he went through. Hives, dizziness, swelling, everything.

Ironic, eh, that some people can be allergic to exercise? But that isn't a reason to stop exercising just because you have a metallic taste in your mouth, I also get this when I hold coins in my sweaty little palm for more than a minute or so, and also whenever I grasp a barbell, I start to get the same taste, which I suspect to be related to me touching metal and either having absorbed it, or having rubbed my face somewhere along the way and getting a whiff of that to my olfactory or gustatory senses... Anyways, exercise induced allergic reactions may be the reason why. It is more likely after a heavy workout (such as climbing the Y, or running). As far as the hurting lungs, I would most likely attribute this to hyperinflation due to the exercise induced hyperventilation and trapped air when people don't take enough time to breathe out/exhale.

Please remember that if this condition bothers you in any way, a physician is the only help or advice you should heed, as I am not a physician.

Thanks for asking this interesting question

Have Fun Storming the Castle,
-Il Guanaco, who may at sometime in his life say "I'm allergic to exercise" and laugh knowingly.

PS. I am still waiting on some professors to get back to me on the sources they think this answer might come from, so if you want them, email me at il(dot)guanaco(at)
Question #23139 posted on 02/18/2006 midnight

Dear 100 Hour Board,


:::Latro::: don't leave us!!

How in the :::Latro::: are we supposed to go on without you??!?

So :::Latro:::, Farewell, Auf Weidersien, Goodbye!

Life is short, play :::Latro:::!

Off he goes, into the wild blue :::Latro:::!

He did make a :::Latro::: impression.

*sniff* You will be missed, my friend.


A: Lamentor,

Latro's been busy and hasn't been really active for a while. He just formalized the departure.

A: Dear Jerk and Lamentor:

Yeah, I think :::Latro::: is stinkin' hot too.

A Writer