Sorry to belabor silly games for so long, but I have one last poison-pilling scenario for y'all to consider. Everybody continues to blame the last person to switch in bad pills, under the theory that his intervening action is bad, or because having taken away the bad pills he still shouldn't put in more bad ones.

So suppose things go on as before. Our star tennis player needs his medicine, and player one sneaks in and replaces them with cyanide. Player two sneaks in and simply takes the cyanide pills away. Our star tennis player, robbed of his medicine, gets quite sick, but is not dead yet. Who is morally responsible for his illness? If he dies, who is morally responsible for his death? How do these answers change depending on player two's motivations? Now, after all, he can argue "no matter what I thought I was doing, what I was actually doing was taking poison away from the star player. So I clearly did a good thing, whether I meant to or not."

The New York Times reports on some work in linguistics forensics, purporting to use regression analyses to figure out whether the author of a work is male or female. I've run the test on a short story of mine and discovered that I am indeed decidedly male. But who would have thought that "the" was such a male word. If you want to run the test on a piece of your own, the test is here. Or send it to me and I'll do it.

Keep a look out for more to come later this evening or early tomorrow morning. Our interview with our second 20-Questions subject is due to be posted. And it's a good one.