What Not to Do in an Earthquake: Conclusions of a spontaneous scientific experiment

Experts have amassed a wealth of information on how to react in an earthquake. But, as is true in most fields of science, there remain hypotheses that cannot be verified due to the ethical problems of performing certain tests on human subjects.

For example, would a person react to temblors in a fundamentally different way if he were raised from infancy in an oversized maraca? Would it or would it not increase your chances of survival if, when the shaking started, you immediately took cover under the belly of Rush Limbaugh? Or would you be pummeled by a barrage of pills and/or curses against the liberals responsible for the quake?

The sad answer to these and many other questions is: We may never know.

But one such scenario -- previously thought untestable -- was indeed subjected to inadvertent empirical analysis during yesterday's 5.4 magnitude temblor. And I was the unwitting subject.

This fluke occurrence, which could never before be simulated for a human subject, answers at long last the age-old question: Should you or should you not attempt to eat a chicken wing during an earthquake?

The spontaneous experiment began at approximately 11:41:59 when, in a fifth-floor office in downtown Los Angeles, I lifted a cafeteria hot wing to my mouth. At approximately 11:42:00, a tremor rocked the building.

The following observations have been recorded for science.

* In a quake, chicken wings becoming highly elusive targets. A subject may try jerking her head back and forth in an attempt to capture her rapidly moving quarry. Yet these efforts will be for naught, as the hand holding the wing is likely moving at a speed unattainable by subject's open mouth.

* Interestingly, colleagues' yells of, "Earthquake! Earthquake!" do not immediately hinder the test subject's efforts. Attempting to eat the moving chicken wing proves sufficiently engrossing as to cause a delayed response, temporarily muting the noise associated with less-important matters such as building evacuation.

* Attempting to eat a chicken wing during a magnitude 5 or higher temblor can result in an effect similar to that seen in the 1980 documentary "Airplane" -- illustrating an experiment in which an airline passenger attempts to apply lipstick amid extreme turbulence -- except with blue cheese dressing instead of lipstick.

* Though a subject who maintains laser-like focus on a chicken wing during a life-threatening emergency may indeed possess certain academic skills, such as adeptness with language and grammar, such subjects are nonetheless not very smart.

An Open Letter to Paula Poundstone She's Sure Never to Read

In her hilarious book, There’s Nothing in This Book That I Meant to Say, comedian Paula Poundstone talks about her aversion to computers. She doesn’t use them. She doesn’t trust them. And she’s not exactly convinced they’re a great thing for society.

Her Exhibit A: She once got an e-mail, printed out by her assistant, that contained just one line: “Is this really your e-mail?” Her closing argument: Nobody sent stuff like that back when doing so meant finding a stamp and licking an envelope.

I’m a member of the “loves computers” camp, but found myself tempted to switch sides yesterday after getting an e-mail from a reader of my weekly column.

The column, which runs in a handful of community newspapers in California, Florida, and Texas, offers mini-grammar lessons. True, it isn’t exactly the dream of my early journalism career. Young reporters often start out vowing, “I’m going to be just like Woodward and Bernstein.” They never vow, “I’m going to be just like Funk and Wagnall.” Still, I have a few readers who enjoy it.

Apparently, I also have some readers who do not, as evidenced by yesterday’s e-mail. It came on the heels of a column I wrote about clauses (and which, apparently, one editor titled "Baring My Clause"). Here's the reader's e-mail, unedited.

Ms. Casagrande,

"Baring my clause" Could not find in the dictionary the following words you used descriptor,nonetheless,subset. A strange article what meaning does it have? My conclusion,another modern day gumsnapper trying to be different,as in blog,reditt etc. You are a product of schools failing.
regards

It ended there. The sender did not give a name.

For a moment, I was ready to join Poundstone’s camp. But just as I was about to drop my laptop out a two-story window, I had an idea. I went to Dictionary.com, entered a few terms, then began composing my reply.

My e-mail reply contained just four lines: a URL linking to the definition of “descriptor,” another linking to the definition of “nonetheless,” and another linking to the definition of “subset.” The fourth and final line was a link to my Dictionary.com search results for the word “gumsnapper”: a link that showed there's no such word.

A pretty adept use of technology, I thought, for “a product of schools failing.”

Oh, and one more thing, Ms. Poundstone: The guy clearly wanted to remain anonymous. But he was unaware that his e-mail server wasn’t as shy. His name is Anthony Cibello.

That’s all for today. I’m taking my computer out for a romantic picnic followed by a few hours of passionate defragging. I love it that much.