1. While at breakfast this morning at one of my usual kook-infested spots, I watched a grown man talk to (full volume) and gently stroke his laptop computer for over 30 minutes. He was saying things like "Oh... that's so sweet of you," and "You're full of surprises today, aren't you?" Maniacal laughter was a frequent bonus. I even checked to see if he had some kind of cam device. Nope.
2. I swear that the person down the hall uses her office as a place to have sex during spring and summer breaks.
3. Man hits woman on his way to anger management class. (Thanks to Princess BitchKitty!)
4. I received just now a request from a journal to review a paper submitted for publication. [In case you don't know, my corner of the academic world thrives on double-blind review: When you submit something for consideration for publication, it is sent out to experts on the topic of your paper for evaluation. They don't know your identity, and you don't know theirs. The process is supposed to ensure fairness. ] What's weird about this is that the paper I've been asked to review is explicit in being aimed at my own views. My name is in the damn subtitle of the piece-- it says something like: "Blah, Blah: Why Spiros is a Stupid Idiot." I of course understand the journal's interest in getting a fair assessment of the paper, so I can see the motivation for sending it to someone not opposed to the view being criticized. But still, it seems to me wrong-- a violation of the aspiration for fairness-- to send a paper criticizing Philosopher X to X herself. Fellow philosophers: Am I wrong?