Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: More brick breaking!
Message-ID: <647@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 10:45:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.647
Posted: Thu Jun  6 10:45:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 03:28:08 EDT
References: <470@nmtvax.UUCP> <1289@amdcad.UUCP> <1899@ut-sally.UUCP> <1903@ut-sally.UUCP> <1595@aecom.UUCP> <611@digi-g.UUCP> <1701@aecom.U6 Jun 85 14:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Distribution: net
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 20
Summary: 

<removing net.nlang.india & net.religion from distribution>

> [long anecdote about more brick breaking]
>I'm not claiming anything super- or preternatural is going on here,
>mind you; I have no explanation, only the evidence of my own senses.
>My feeling is simply that the effort required in splitting a common
>brick is greatly overrated.
>
>                           -- Bill Ingogly

Yes, the first obvious answer is that the brick was hit hard enough to
break it; after all, bricklayers just bap them with a trowel when they need
1/2 a brick.  However, the original poster wanted alternate explainations for
a soft break, since he felt the force of the strike wasn't enough to break it.
With this option removed, the next best answer is some sort of deception.
This also has the advantage of not contradicting physical laws that have
been working since Newton.

Merlyn Leroy
	...who can break his head with a brick