We were able to do a few fun things while we were there,
...like go to the California Science Center...
...and eat dim sum with our friend, Bethany, in Chinatown...
...and go to T-ball practice with n x 1.6 (n>1)...
...and play with the high energy E.T.
But my favorite thing was just to hang out at my sister's apartment with n x 1.6 (n>1) and E.T. After T-ball practice, Miles said to me, "Cuckoo, I need to ask you a question." Note: n x 1.6 (n>1) only knows me as Aunt Cuckoo, a nickname my sister and bro-in-law jokingly gave me and stuck!
So, we sat down on the couch and then he asked me his pressing question--"Cuckoo, do you think that talking trains are real?"
If you know happen to understand the obsession with trains that n x 1.6 (n>1) has, you will understand how important this question is!
He then proceeded to tell me his "hypothesis": talking trains aren't real. I asked him to show me the "data" of why talking trains aren't real. He continues, telling me his observations of Thomas the Tank Engine and how he doesn't look real. He LOVES Thomas, so this was kind of a shock to hear him say he doesn't believe Thomas is real.
I asked him if he knew of any other famous trains that we could observe if they could talk and if they were real. He couldn't think of any, until I asked him about The Little Engine That Could. Before I knew it, n x 1.6 (n>1) had run into his room to get The Little Engine That Could and was looking for spots in the book where the Engine talks (quotation marks were his hint). The Engine does indeed "talk", saying "I think I can" several times.
After our extensive conversation, he finally came to the conclusion that his hypothesis was true, since he had only seen talking trains in books and TV. I think he may have realized that he also "does not have significant data and more studies would be needed."
What do you think? Do you agree with n x 1.6 (n >1)--talking trains aren't real?