On the Yahoo home page at the moment, in the "Featured" area, one of the stories is titled "Eyebrows: why and how?" That linked to a question on their Yahoo Answers, where someone inquired about the evolution of eyebrows, and the answer selected as the best (by the asker) featured multiple references.
The featured stories on the home page include sub-links to other items on the same general topic. The sub-link for the story above was called "The purpose of eyebrows and lashes."
That text, I presume, is set by the powers that be for the home page.
That one linked to another question on Yahoo Answers, where a user asked about the purpose of eyebrows and lashes. The answer he selected as best noted several purposes for eyebrows and lashes, starting with:
"They were meant to be absolutely for reasons.
1. Beauty since god created human in teh [sic] best shape to differentiate him among creatures."
(After that the answerer mentioned protecting the eyes from sweat, communicating non-verbally, protecting the eyes from dust, and another allusion to "god" making they eyes beautiful.)
Not surprisingly, the comments left in response to that start with someone lamenting the inclusion of God in the "best" answer, with others declaring the question and answer a "joke" and stating "'God did it' is a cheap answer."
And whether or not it's cheap, it doesn't tend to be that convincing. Until one notices the asker's screen name: goodisgod.
Well, there you go. Whether one agrees with the answer or the selection of that answer (over all the other, more scientific answers offered), it becomes clear that none of the objections in the comments are going to convince the asker of anything.
Personally, I am fascinated by the amount of emotion spent on both sides (those who agree and those who disagree), implying that there was the likelihood of either side being swayed even a tiny bit.
(As though anyone ever changes his mind in the 21st century.)
And apparently, those who select the featured stories for the Yahoo home page wanted to spotlight that. Along with pointing (in one of the other featured stories) how people are searching for the singer in the new iPod commercials (Feist).
It's the internet, people; it's about what's popular, not what's right or wrong. And it's definitely not worth getting all worked up over.
Why, just last night, I myself was looking up the singer in the iPod commercial. I was rendered speechless when the research on wikipedia lead me to this phrase: "Canadian indie rock supergroup".
ReplyDeleteCan't justify it, but for some reason those words didn't seem to go together...
Heck, I still have a hard time with Mark trying to convince me that Triumph actually exists and isn't just some construction he made up. "You mean there's more than one Canadian power trio I should know about?"