|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/02/57 12:01
In article <Xns9A3379307EB83nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
> >>
> >> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
> >
> > You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
> >
> > If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
> > it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all.
>
> Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
>
> > It is a cup without a bottom.
>
> Nope.
[... 1000 gibbering repeat "Nope"s snipped ...]
Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
loss to describe such a cup.
I have thought of another use for a cup that has a (small) hole
in it. And am thinking to actually drill such a hole in existing
cups to make them functionally better. In Australia, if you
forget to drink some or all of your cup of tea or coffee, you
stand a good chance of a cockroach drowning and making for an
ugly sight in the morning. With a small hole, the liquid drains
away slowly and lessens the chances of this.
True, when one is actually drinking with it, there would be a
slight dripping on ones clothes. But in the bush*, this would not
matter much. City refined types would need a small plug perhaps,
this could be engineered or designed (hell, I am clean confused
about which you want to use of these two terms now) into it.
Please think about cups more, Boji. Are you absolutely and
utterly sure you don't want some little pics of cups from me?
* Where is Farmer Joe? He is not around these ngs any more. I
hope he has not had an accident with his tractor.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|