:: Free article content
Authors: Maximum article exposure. Publishers: Reprintable article content.
Featured Articles
Recently Added Articles
Most Viewed Articles
Article Comments
Advanced Article Search
Submit Article
Check Article Status
Author TOS
RSS Article Feeds
Terms of Service

Is it correct, if it's meant to be enough that the United States feels the balls of a creepy hallway?
Home Social Issues Philosophy
By: Thomas H Cullen Email Article
Word Count: 484 Digg it | it | Google it | StumbleUpon it


In general, I have no problem with the United States feeling the balls of a creepy hallway. The United States component works. Feeling balls works. And a creepy hallway works. What’s intriguing however – though not necessarily to a forced degree – is what happens if the word "feel" is replaced with the word "tickle".

For some reason, implementing this change has a drastic effect. In the original version of the scenario, the function of feeling a creepy hallway’s balls may not be perfect, but its effect can hardly be accounted for as counter-productive; the same can’t be said of the subsequent version.

The act of tickling is a derivative of the mere act of feeling. And that’s what makes the effect of the change all the more puzzling. Overall, the basic idea of tickling is cringe; tickling isn’t a presumed reality, but is something that’s near or almost near to elaborate. And yet, this is still the case in an event that involves the United States and a creepy hallway.

Is it incorrect, if it’s too much to ask that that the United States tickles the balls of a creepy hallway, as opposed to just feeling the balls of a creepy hallway? Subtract the overall situation – meaning that there is no United States, and there is no creepy hallway – and then replace the former component with Jerry and replace the latter component with a horse: the new scenario now reads as "Jerry tickles the balls of a horse".

Say the new sentence, out loud, and then ask yourself – what is the effect?

Is it nice and seemly, if Jerry tickles the balls of a horse?

After saying the sentence to myself, my honest response is that the scenario is still unseemly but not perhaps for the same reason. The truth might just be that any scenario that involves tickling something’s balls will always be dysfunctional – assuming that this is the case, is it offensive?

Any nation, and any creepy hallway that interact with each other should have access to any part of reality. However, practice suggests otherwise. The power of the balls, and the power of the United States can always act as a weapon to the act of tickling, but to me that just seems like an insult to the United States and to the balls.

There is one silver lining however. If the hallway isn’t creepy, but is just a hallway, the effect is also drastic (albeit differently); perhaps the ultimate point is that when a creepy hallway has its balls felt by a nation – not just the United States, but any nation – there is no rule that says that the situation has the ability to be exempt from individual details.

A given detail always represents its truth, and there is no way to manipulate this truth

Live in the UK. Unpublished author of fiction, but am just as content to explore the world of non-fiction

Article Source:

This article has been viewed 202 times.

Rate Article
Rating: 0 / 5 stars - 0 vote(s).

Article Comments
There are no comments for this article.

Leave A Reply
 Your Name
 Your Email Address [will not be published]
 Your Website [optional]
 What is four + four? [tell us you're human]
Notify me of followup comments via email

Related Articles

Copyright © 2020 by All rights reserved.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Submit Article | Editorial