So here's the list of topics I was considering writing a post about for the Medical Heritage Library blog for tomorrow...
"Daffodils are pretty." (There are pot daffodils in the room.)
"Why is there a dalmatian on the hill?" (Dog, not person, and the hill is outside my apartment.)
"Why is a mouse when it spins?" (Full points if you get the reference.)
"What, really, is a treacle well?" (No points if you get the reference.)
"If you give a fuck, raise your hand!" (Which has a kind of pleasant Catch-22 ring to it.)
"How can bumblebees fly, really?" (Because why not?)
"And what's up with geese?" (Ditto.)
"Did anyone really understand Lost?" (Additional question: "...or understand the ending?")
"Why did Wash have to die?" ("Because Joss said" is not an acceptable answer.)
"Why do young men wear pants that don't fit?" (Or young women for that matter.)
"Why would anyone watch Gladiator twice?" (Or any Russell Crowe movie other than A Good Year.)
"Explain Richard E. Grant." (Extra points for also positing a theory of Paul McGann.)
"The rise of splatterpunk. Discuss." (Without examples, please.)
"That the SciFi Channel should never be allowed to make anything 'original'. Elaborate with examples." (And the fact that they generally hire one good actor -- David Hewlett, Misha Collins, Lucy Brown, Rhys Ifans -- to try and disguise a heap of shit is not a fact which can be adduced in their defense.)
Unfortunately, none of these could reasonably be said to concern the history of medicine, even at the broadest possible point.
Sad, the burdens which professionalism places upon us...