|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 01/29/08 22:40
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:15:37
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > 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.
>>
>> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
>
> Not really, no. What would you call the cups I have previously
> described without being silly? Would you make up your own terms?
Well, I might call the "punishment cup" a groin-drencher. Does that
help?
> I can see that you have no patience or stomach for the enquiries
> I have made to you to explore a distinction you yourself made.
> There is no need to explain why this is so, I accept all
> responsibility.
It's nice to see a woman who admits she's wrong when she's wrong at least
some of the time.
> For anyone else that might be interested (highly unlikely to be
> many <g>): The idea that a cup without a bottom is still a cup is
> not some sort of joke. It is the serious point that if you do not
> call it a cup, you have lost a perfectly proper and natural way
> of describing it. This point is an objection to the common
> practice of avoiding real issues by red herrings about words.
Who said one couldn't call it a cup? But what you call it and what it
is...
> The point of probing the distinction between design and
> engineering is to see what the true ingredients are of a designed
> object, to distinguish in it the various aspects. These aspects
> can be divorced from the actual histories and psychology of the
> object and its creators.
Since when does an inanimate object have a psychology? Hast thee been
perusing too many cartoon teleshows of late?
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|