Girl, bathing on Bikini, eyeing boy, finds boy eyeing bikini on bathing girl.

From a New Statesman competition:

Women understand men; few men understand women.
God knows man. What is doubtful is what man knows God.
Does milk machinery milk does?
Bores are people that say that people are bores.

A few more.

“The anthology has no particular axe to grind, apart from that of having no particular axe to grind.”

— David McCord

He called her a noun, a pronoun, an adverb, and she hesitated. He vigorously charged her with being conjunction and preposition. She wavered. And when at length with stentorian voice he accused her to her face of being a parallelopipedon, she broke in disorder and fled in the utmost confusion.

(Frederic Coudert, “Lying as a Fine Art,” 1873.)

It has been claimed that only three people read the three volumes of Russell and Whitehead’s monumental Principia Mathematica in its entirety, namely Russell, Whitehead, and the proofreader. There has been some scepticism, however, about Russell and Whitehead belonging to the list.

— Leo Moser, quoted in Howard Eves, Mathematical Circles Adieu, 1977

From an observation by the fifth-century Indian grammarian and philosopher Bhartrhari. “[E]very argument advanced to support any instance of the unnameability thesis drives one still more firmly into the paradox,” note philosophers Hans and Radhika Herzberger, “for they naturally tend to involve repeated reference to the very things whose unnameability they undertake to establish.”

(Hans G. Herzberger and Radhika Herzberger, “Bhartrhari’s Paradox,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 9:1 [March 1981], 1-17.)

‘Theft’ is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of ‘rightfully owned property’ — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner’s consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as ‘theft.’ Thus, the statement ‘All property is theft’ has an internal contradiction: to use the concept ‘theft’ while denying the validity of the concept of ‘property,’ is to use ‘theft’ as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

— Nathaniel Branden, “The Stolen Concept,” The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1963

Explain the following: falkun, home de guerra, kick, lavoro, moed, mosca, raccordement, schafer, stobhach, tre, zevk.

Apparently this was deliberate. L’Engle biographer Leonard Marcus writes, “With a wink to the reader, she chose for the opening line of A Wrinkle in Time, her most audaciously original work of fiction, that hoariest of clichés … L’Engle herself was certainly aware of the old warhorse’s literary provenance as … Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s much-maligned, much-parodied repository of Victorian purple prose, Paul Clifford.”

4 1/2 cups 1st Kings 4:22
1 1/2 cups Judges 5:25
2 cups Jeremiah 6:20
2 cups 1st Samuel 30:12
2 cups Nahum 3:12
1 cup Numbers 17:8
1/2 cup Judges 4:19
2 tablespoons of 1st Samuel 14:25
1 pinch of Leviticus 2:13
2 teaspoons of Amos 4:5
6 teaspoons Jeremiah 17:11

The first line calls for 4 1/2 cups of flour, because 1 Kings 4:22 reads “And Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal.” In the same way, the rest refer respectively to butter, sugar, raisins, figs, almonds, milk, honey, salt, leaven, and eggs. No baking instructions are given.