Do you realize how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?

Just a little bored are we?

Looks that way, huh?

Is a hole still a hole if it still has its original dirt in it ... ?

I would think a hole is still a hole, if the hole still has the original dirt in the said hole!

Now my question would be if that hole with the same dirt in the same hole, were to be shifted around in the said hole, would that still be the same old hole?

I always wondered how much more water there would be in the oceans if there weren't sponges....

Solution:

Catch several sizes sponge, hang them out to dry! Then get a total dry weight on various sizes...keep a chart!

Next, after gathering pre-study info...catch all the sponges in the oceans, and weigh them...remember to subtract the appropriate dry weight (according to size in chart)! By doing this you get the net weight of the water!

Now...take all the net weights collected as data, and devide by 8.35lb! This is the weight(in US Wt) of 1 gallon of water...the answer should be approximately the number of additional gallons of water to add back to the ocean!

If the hole under consideration remains in its pristine, untouched, virginal state and is still an intact and unbroken hole, and which still contains said original dirt and, if said original dirt were to have been just shifted about in place but not actually changed in depth, breadth, or composition, then the logical conclusion must be that said pristine, virginal, original hole is essentially or completely unchanged from its original 'as-made / as-found' state in its entirety and may be considered to be, in fact, 'the same old hole'. This conclusion not valid in CA, MI, OH, WI or NY. Void at non-participating forums. This conclusion may not be combined with any other conclusion(-s) nor added to other speculation(-s) already provided for in the discussion.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're ever going to get this hole situation straightened out!

For it to remain intact as the original old hole...then any attempt to disturb the innermost of said old hole...would most diffidently change the molecularity structure of said old hole!

Now keeping in mind, that with the strategically placed of said old hole, has by seniority, established it's own ground(no pun)!

With aforementioned old hole, standing it's position, there would seem that by having another old hole also near by...would theatrically, create additional holes...which would, and rightfully be identified as new holes! By which after 3 to 4 decades of time and weather beaten-ed...could very likely be, by now...a Grand Old hole, none like that of the Grand Canyon...now there is a big old hole!

So, with the new assessments of old hole(s)...new/old/big...it has come to my conclusions, that a hole is a hole, is a hole, is a hole...

Whewww...too much thinking from a 9th grade education!!!!

It seems as if we're now moving beyond the original subject of pristine, virginal, intact holes and addressing the entire spectrum of 'hole-ology' and 'hole growth'. We could be said to be addressing the topic of 'generational holes' and 'hole offspring'. This, while fascinating in its own right, seems to be a topic best reserved for a separate thread where the hole matter can be 'opened up' (so to speak) and 'explored in depth'. Bueller ... ? Bueller ... ?

POTHOLES!



When residents of a small Saskatchewan town got sick of their provincial government's lack of attention to their roads, they decided to take off their clothes. The result was a calendar of the town's residents posing nude in and around potholes on Highway 32. One month featured a naked man in a canoe while another depicted a gent covering up with a hubcap. The stunt apparently worked — local news reports say funding for Highway 32 repairs was approved in October 2008.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1866667_1866668_1866656,00.html

Well, right ... but they're not dealing wiith pristine, virginal, intact holes tho', are they ... ? They have a problem with what we in the trade like to call 'used holes' - or, 'holes with a past'. They're usually much more intransigent and harder to get rid of, so it's easy to understand the need of these people to resort to such drastic measures. Now, if they were dealing with only pristine, virginal, intact holes, they'd be living problem-free - at least until the holes lost their 'virginal' status ...

now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall