<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="bbPress/1.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Forum &#187; Topic: Hibernation study raises questions about popular sarcastic questions.</title>
		<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=53495</link>
		<description>The NewsBiscuit Community</description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 17:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2</generator>
		<textInput>
			<title><![CDATA[Search]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Search all topics from these forums.]]></description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php</link>
		</textInput>
		<atom:link href="http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/rss.php?topic=53495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

		<item>
			<title>weematt on "Hibernation study raises questions about popular sarcastic questions."</title>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=53495#post-154387</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>weematt</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">154387@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/</guid>
			<description>&#60;p&#62;Neat-o ....&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Hibernation scientists studying the waste management practices of bears has shown that bears do NOT shit in the woods – at least not for seven months of the year. Shitting and sleeping appear to be mutually exclusive.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;The previous universal assumption that bears shit in the woods would seem to be only partially true and the certainty underlying the much used sarcastic question  - “Do bears shit in the woods?” - is critically undermined. The assertion that bears shit in the woods is only valid for five months of any given year. The question should be &#34;Do bears sometimes shit in the woods?&#34; As currently phrased it is now possible to reply “Yes, but not all year long, ha-ha, so there!” &#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Leading word-smiths are calling for the replacement of the most used secular sarcastic question in the English language. Dr. Ursula Major, a consultant phraseologist at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, said “There is no doubt that this phrase must be replaced. It will no doubt produce doubt where there was certainty, and certainly generate uncertainty where there was no doubt, if continued use is allowed.” When asked if the Government would be bringing in legislation on this matter she replied “Is George Osborne an economist?”&#60;br /&#62;
When the bear shitting question is used it is common for the next most popular sarcastic question to appear - “Is the pope Catholic?”&#60;br /&#62;
Where does this bear shit revelation leave the Catholic Church? Should their own assertive question be questioned? How can we be sure this Pope and his predecessors are indeed Catholic when one of the previously held fundamental truths of life – the placement of bear excrement – is proved no longer valid for most of the year. Perhaps the Pope is only Catholic when he dresses up in his papal finery?&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Dr. Major continued “We are asking people to discontinue using both questions until such time as the relevant committees have had time to deliberate and report on suitable replacements. We are hopeful the general public will come forward with new sarcastic questions.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;In the meantime, in the interests of certainty, we are recommending the use of “Was Jimmy Saville a Papal Knight?””
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
