Library shenanigans
So what’s the haps? Um, I spent my day in Murdoch Library reading books by Talcott Parsons who (to quote Mark from Daria) gives dry, ponderous intellectuals a bad name. Him and books on the ‘rational choice’ theory of economics, a theory which basically says people act in rational pursuit of their own interests. You think people would have cottoned on to that a bit earlier than 1850, but if they did they certainly didn’t bother writing it down. And it’s strange because I learned that sociology and economics were only really invented 100 to 150 years ago. Did you know that?
Oh, and by the way, has anyone else been to Murdoch Library lately? I swear they have a BEARDED LADY working there. Seriously. A bearded lady. How the hell do you explain that?
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It’s Murdoch. She’s bearded because of the high per-capita lesbian ratio. They don’t believe in beautification just for the sake of it. It’s “pandering to the male ideal”. They just let their hair go free and easy.
Comment by hawkeye23 — Tuesday October 24 2006 @ 8:36 pm
Perhaps people are getting stupider as time progress and that sociology and economics have been around longer than that, but everybody knew all about them and was smart enough not to need them written down. See it all started with the caveman. They had to start doodling on shit and eventually the Sumerians, Phoenecians, Egyptians and everybody else jumped on the writing and drawing stuff boat. Early man didn’t have a Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, wear neck tiese, work in cubicles, or elect W-Bush. As our written forms of communication have become better we have become dumber.
Comment by Winter — Wednesday October 25 2006 @ 11:02 am
Hawkeye - it’s a butch thing, then? That kinda makes sense, but it’s still pretty hardcore.
Winter - Good call, dude. This innernet is makin me evn st00pidr.
Comment by Mark — Wednesday October 25 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Who knows? I don’t bat for that team. I just know that Murdoch specialises in the Womens Studies side of things….. I’m just joining the dots…..
Comment by hawkeye23 — Wednesday October 25 2006 @ 8:24 pm
I met a bearded lady yesterday, too. I doubt it was the same one, unless she miraculously works at two different universities at the same time.
With my understanding of Quantum, it could happen.
Comment by boofuls — Wednesday October 25 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Can you please go back there and take pics of this bearded lady? The only one I’ve ever seen was a transvestite.
Are you sure the bearded lady is … well, a lady? And not just some bloke who shoves footy sucks down his shirt?
Comment by Mish — Wednesday October 25 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Did she have man hands? With wrists like tree trunks?
There was a lady that worked at a store at my university like that.
Maybe every university has a resident bearded lady. It sure appears to be the case as there have been mention of one at three seperate universities.
Comment by colonel eggroll — Thursday October 26 2006 @ 5:09 am
Hawkeye - yes, the dots are definitely joining up now ._._._._._. (and so on)
Liz - Wow. That is one hell of a coincidence. I googled it, but it turns out there are no reports apart from mine.
Misha - I didn’t really stare, but her figure and clothes were pretty feminine. I was thinking ‘hot’ until I saw the beard… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Julia - Yes, it must be tradition to have a bearded lady on the staff at a university. For good luck or something.
Comment by Mark — Thursday October 26 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Geez, man, I’d be thinking less than “hot” if it be of the typical bearded lady that I know. They don’t get that rating even from a silhouette.
Comment by Switch — Thursday October 26 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Yeah, but this was more like a bum fluff teenage beard: not noticable from a distance.
Comment by Mark — Thursday October 26 2006 @ 5:29 pm
economics only became a discipline in its own right when the liberals decided markets operated best without any interference from the likes of politics and society…
…the rest of us all know its not that abstract however. dont we?
Comment by bob — Friday October 27 2006 @ 11:21 pm
Word. :)
Comment by Mark — Saturday October 28 2006 @ 6:12 pm