Dear the FIRMbss: Could you kindly explain how a guinea pig with a pancake on its head is consistent with/could possibly explain let alone give an answer to the gist of mlc9852's question?
I love humor just as much as the next guy. But it seems to me that, in order for something to be "funny," it must have some correlation/resemblance to actual existence as human beings normally experience it, for good or ill.
Guinea pigs with pancakes on their heads cannot -- it seems to me -- be admitted as "authoritative" evidence of anything other than the seemingly persistent human desire to take a "whack" at the constituted nature or order of universal reality. That being the case, it would seem unwise to consider such "nonsense" as a reliable indicator or witness in matters concerning the real world of common human experience.
Therefore, I reluctantly conclude that you do not have a good-faith, good-will interest in this argument at all. Your sole intent/purpose here was to make mlc9852 look like a jerk.
But I'll stand with mlc9852 here: If mlc9852 is a jerk, then so am I.
Given your example, I surmise that the prospects for rational human discourse have sunken disastrously in recent times.
You remind me of the guy -- what's his name? -- on The Simpsons, whose ready response to absolutely anything and everything that could possibly or actually does happen is: "HA-HA!!!"
In short, I find you unresponsive to the question in debate. FWIW.