That was funny! However, I am now triggered by your decode shaming. I need a trophy.

Seriously, 'though, who cares whether or not anyone does elaborate and possibly rube goldberg like decodes? At 5 years old, their maturity level already dwarfs the people who got us into this pickle. There is nothing wrong with ridiculous bullshit nonsense going on. It might play a role even if it isn't true at all.

Wait. Then that might mean that you are also playing a role by hating on it and then I am in turn playing a role by enjoying your words and inviting you to join me in not worrying about the fact that...

No matter how hard I try, I can never seem to predict a single decode. It does seem like hocus pocus (derived of course from habeas corpus and the catholic priests' insistence on mass in latin). What lends a shred of interest is that, valid or not, the data seems to be reliable. What looks like random, omni directional stabs in the dark somehow seem to converge and there is consensus about which lunatic interpretation is right.

Convergence is only a data point. Obviously those priests said more or less the same sorts of things and had a mechanism for sorting out how many angels dance on the pin. Mobs seem to get the same idea easily enough. But in the case of astrology and other speculative practises like anthropology and calculus, those mumbling mad men seem intractably convinced they are onto, not just something, but relatively the same thing. They start completing each other's sentences and I feel left out.

There is a possibility that, if enough human attention is paid to making a sufficient elaborate but convergent system, the system will pick up harmonics and reveal truth. Like predictive linguistics. Like sherlock holmes.

However, at least when sherlock explains how he figured it all out, it makes sense. I get the idea that I could have preemptively followed that logic. Not so with the decodes.

Please write more funny stuff. It was wonderful.