Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold Water?

The English letter 'Y' is not pronounced 'Yuh'.
Instead the English letter 'Y' is usually correctly pronounced as 'ee' (long e) just as it is in the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish etc.).
When you say the word yellow you are not saying Yuh-ell-oh. Instead you are correctly saying ee-ell-oh. Try it -- you'll surprise yourself.

YESTERDAY = EE-ESTER-DAY, not yuh-ester-day
YOU = EE-OO or EE-UU, not yuh-oo

There are a few words that might seem to be exceptions. Some of those are due to our pronunciation changing over the centuries.

The word "MY" is a word that might seem to be an exception. But note that "MY" is still pronounced as "MEE" in some locations. (e.g. "Get your 'ands off mee umbrella, bloke!") Even so, in "MY" the "Y" still has an EE sound preceded by an "AH" (a diphthong). As in MAH-EE. Imagine how silly it would sound if "MY" was pronounced with the "YUH" sound! "MYUH".

The English letter 'W' is not pronounced 'Wuh'.
Instead the English letter 'W' is correctly pronounced 'oo' or 'uu' (long u) just as 'single U' is pronounced in the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish etc.).
When you say the word water you are not saying wuh-ah-ter. Instead you are correctly saying oo-ah-ter. Try it -- you'll surprise yourself.

WONDER = OO-UNDER, not wuh-under
WAR = OO-OAR, not wuh-oar
DEW = DOO, not doo-wuh

The English letters 'QU' are not pronounced 'KW' (i.e 'kwuh').
Instead the English letters 'QU' are correctly pronounced 'koo' or 'ku' (long u).
When you say the word question you are not saying kwuh-ess-chun. Instead you are correctly saying koo-ess-chun. Try it -- you'll surprise yourself.

QUIET = Koo-eye-et, not kwuh-eye-et
QUARTER = Koo-ore-ter (frequently elided to kort-er), not kwuh-ore-ter
QUINTILIUS = Koo-in-till-ee-us, not kwuh-in-till-ee-us

The almond is frequently, but incorrectly, said to be a member of the peach family. The almond is not a member of the peach family, but rather it is a member of the Rosaceae (Rose) family. The only statement that would be true is that the Almond and the Peach are in the same family.

The slogan "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't" is correct since an almond is a nut. A nut is defined (among other things) as being the seed of a fruit.

Botanists have hijacked the word "nut" and, in a haughty tone, tell us that an almond is not a "true" nut. But the word "nut" was here long before those botanists, and long before Linnaeus started classifying Plants.

Ever since Linnaeus started categorizing plants it has been difficult to have any two botanists agree on a uniform classification and naming system. Even today (2007) different groups are competing -- with each having their own naming system and rules. Some of the problem arises from the vanity of having the name of the "discovering" scientist included as a part of the official name. Also, botanists can't even agree on how many classes to use for classification. Many of us are familiar with the five. Currently some groups are advocating a seven-tier or eight-tier classification system. Of course, neither group can agree with the others. The whole brouhaha is probably fueled solely by the Academic requirement to Publish Or Perish

"I am" is not the shortest. Three shorter sentences are:

• Yes.
• No.
• Me?

Of course "shortest" can be in number of words, or total letters. There are numerous one-word sentences (e.g sixteen, one, Cincinnati, three) and there are several one-word sentences with the same number of letters as "I am" or less.

"I AM" = 2 words, 3 letters

Usage examples:
PAUL - "Are you going to the store today?"
JOHN - "Yes." (One sentence, one word, three letters)
PAUL - "Will you buy another 12-pack for me?"
JOHN - "No." (One sentence, one word, two letters)
PAUL - "Please...?"
JOHN - "No. You're already in trouble for spilling beer on Ma's bible!"
PAUL - "Me?" (One sentence, one word, two letters)
JOHN - "Yes!"
PAUL - "No!"
JOHN - "Yes!"
PAUL - "No!"
JOHN - "Yes!"
PAUL - "No!"
JOHN - "Are too!"
PAUL - "Am not!"
JOHN - "Are too!"
PAUL - "Am not!"
JOHN - "Are too!"
PAUL - "Am not!"
MA - "Who spilled beer on my bible?"
JOHN - "Paul did it!"
PAUL - "Huh uh! It was Cindy!"
MA - "Cindy, how old are you?"
CINDY - "Three." (One word sentence)
MA - "Where were you born?"
CINDY - "Cincinnati." (One word sentence)
MA - "Well, if you are going to be drinking beer, be more careful!"
CINDY - "But Ma..."
MA - "Hush up young lady. You heard me. Don't be smarting off to me."
CINDY - "But Ma..."
MA - "Hush!"
CINDY - "But Ma!"
MA - "You better do as you're told - do you understand?"
CINDY - "Okay." (One word sentence)

Chocolate will kill your dog?

Chocolate will not kill your dog. At least not any more than tomatoes, water, pudding, olives, or bananas⁽¹⁾ will kill you. The claimed 'poisonous' ingredient in chocolate is the chemical theobromine. Although that chemical may be poisonous in sufficient quantity, it is absurd to claim that your dog will die if you feed him a candy bar. This should be evident to anyone who is paying attention.

If you could kill a dog with chocolate, guard dogs would become useless. Can you imagine your buddy 'Bob', the burglar, carrying a box of candy bars on his next job... to take care of the guard dog? Why bother with poisoned meat, where you hope the dog won't smell the poison and refuse to eat it? Hey! Just throw three or four Snickers® bars inside the fence and come back 15 minutes later!

Got a noisy bothersome dog next door that keeps barking? Throw three or four Hersheys® pure milk chocolate bars over your neighbor's fence! Problem solved! If your neighbor found poisoned meat next to his dead dog, he could make a case in court that you were culpable. But can you imagine your neighbor trying to explain chocolate to the judge?

"Honest judge! I know he killed my dog because I found a half-eaten candy bar on the grass right beside my dearly beloved Rover!"

Veterinarians could save money and anguish when a dog had to be put-down. It is hard to have to explain to your children that Rex was given a shot and he probably didn't suffer (much). It would be so much easier if we could explain that, yes, Rex is dead... but you should have seen the look on his face when we threw the box of chocolate into his pen! That dog died the happiest dog we've seen in years!

Nonsense! All nonsense!

Pepsi and Coke both have Phosphoric Acid as an ingredient. Phosphoric Acid, in it's pure form is poisonous (and very caustic). But, just like dogs and the theobromine in chocolate, you would have a very difficult time trying to consume enough Pepsi or Coke in one sitting to poison yourself.

Chocolate will not kill your dog.
If you really love your little 'Mitzy' or 'Brin-Brin' or 'Pookie' give them a small chunk of your next candy bar. Your dog will love you for it. And... he'll still be alive to come back for more tomorrow!

⁽¹⁾tomatoes, water, pudding, olives, or bananas can kill humans if eaten (or drunk) to an extreme. It is nearly impossible to get a dog to eat the amount of chocolate, in one sitting that it would take to 'poison' the dog.

The Marfa Lights are unexplained 'Mystery' lights?

Marfa Lights - Marfa, Texas. Ultimately, these are caused by automobile headlights. Although that is the answer, more explanation is needed. This is because there are several interest groups at work here, each playing a particular part in this twisted tale of yarns, lore, lies, and hype.

• The Honest group (Skeptics, Realists and others who see the Marfa Lights for the sham they are
• The Dishonest Group (Certain Marfa locals, Book Authors and other who have a financial stake in the 'selling' of the Marfa Lights Tale
• The All-Other-Persons Group (UFO-ologists, Spiritualists, The Gullible Public,

The biggest problem is that the believers and the non-believers sometimes are talking about two different things when they claim that the lights are a true unexplained mystery.

Again, they are not unexplained. They have been fully explained by all who did serious research with an actual purpose of identifying the source.

You have the Marfa townsfolk, and the Library, and the Chamber of Commerce pointing people to the Chinati mountains for a "good view" of the Marfa Lights. All serious study has shown those lights to be from automobile headlights coming down the mountain (a considerable distance away). The bobbing, weaving, splitting and other goofy descriptions are from the automobiles passing behind plant life, or dipping down in gullies, and coming back into sight at a different place, etc.

But then you have the author of a book about the Marfa Lights, who relies on book sales for his extra income to supplement his retirement, who claims outright that anyone looking towards the Chinati mountains IS seeing car headlights. Then he goes on to explain (wrongly) that the real Marfa Lights are only seen in a different location, miles east of the Chinatis. But when you look at the cover of his book, he has a picture of a supposed Marfa Light, and it is on the Chinati mountains!

Second-hand cigarette smoke kills people?

Initial answer: Although I know I am going against the "everybody knows the world is flat, Columbus, please don't sail!" politically correct crowd, secondhand smoke does not kill people. The anti-smoking crowd was constantly barraged with the fact that many, many more people smoked and didn't die from lung cancer than the number who did smoke and died from lung cancer. Their answer for years could be summed up as, "...well if it [first-hand smoking] kills just one person, that's one too many!...". Then, they were presented with data that many "lung cancer" victims were not even smokers. They ignored this for as long as they could. Finally one of their smarter propagandists came up with the (lame) explanation that if a lung cancer victim was a smoker, it was the cigarettes that caused the death. If the lung cancer victim was not a smoker, it was other peoples' smoke that caused the death!

They were then presented with evidence that many supposed "second-hand smoke" victims had little or no contact with cigarette smoke. The anti-smoking group simply ignored this evidence too, just as they ignored the previous evidence that countered their claims. It is a case of "moving the goal-post" everytime the evidence gets near to deflating their claims.

Lung cancer caused by the naturally occuring gas RADON kills almost as many people as lung cancer from other causes (i.e. 1st-hand cigarette smoking). But you never hear much about that, do you? Why? Because it doesn't fit their propaganda model.

We frequently hear or read about the supposed "proven" link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Also, we are told of the many people who die from "smoking-related diseases". Do you know how they calculate the number of "smoking-related" deaths? You would think that a fair assessment would come from counting the number of smokers who died (before their time) from lung cancer. But no. That is not how they do it. The anti-smoking scientists (medical or otherwise) have developed a very, very long list of human diseases that they have labeled as "smoking-related diseases". Then anyone who dies from any of those diseases, whether they smoked or not, it is counted as a "smoking-related death". When presented with the fact that most, if not all, of these diseases existed and were causing many deaths before smoking became wide-spread... you guessed it... they just ignore that too.

Disclaimer:

1. I am not a doctor.
2. I am a smoker, trying to quit (starting right after this next cigarette)
3. I know that cigarette smoke is stinky sometimes.
4. Tobacco smoke embedded in hair or clothes or fingers does have an offensive smell.
5. An unemptied ashtray stinks! But... so does an unflushed toiled. Empty your ashtrays daily!
6. Smokers who congregate around exits, puffing away, what's up with that? Just plain stupid! Step away from the door, and move down-wind!
7. Requests to not smoke near a non-smoker should be honored.
8. Requests to not smoke in the same room as a non-smoker should be honored.
9. Requests to not smoke in the same building as a non-smoker should be honored if the building is small.
10. Requests to not smoke in the same City, State, Country or Planet as a non-smoker should be ignored. The non-smoker should be sent for mental evaluation, specifically looking for the "Chicken Little" syndrome. A large influence of selfish "Me Too-ism" may be evident also.
11. Anyone who does not smoke should not start. It is expensive, stinky and hard to quit.