Text 29742, 79 rader
Skriven 2006-05-16 13:50:52 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
  Kommentar till text 29687 av Stewart Arnett (3:772/100)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
 FS>> I think his best bet is to re-define "barrel" as, for example, "a
 FS>> container with something loose inside -- something which can
 FS>> easily rattle" ...

 SA> The words ... loose ... rattle ... think upon them, you are
 SA> actually starting to get an incling of why an empty (for the
 SA> womble) wooden barrel can rattle. No need to re-define "barrel"
 SA> just think upon the ideas wrought from the main word "loose" you
 SA> have mentioned above. Consider a barrel is made from wood and iron,
 SA> you may just get the reason.

Really... there is no need for the parts of the wooden barrel to be all that
loose at all... nor is there a need to confine it wo wooden barrels.

There is no need to redefine a barrel, but maybe for those two great educated
blunders it,s time to actually define rattle.  For this application the

"a. to make or emit a quick succession of short percussive sounds ... b. To
move with such sounds"

or

"A series of short sharp sounds made in quick succession that gives the effect
of a continuous sound."

definitions commonly found will do just fine.


Roll -any- empty barrel accross the floor/ground whatever, and it WILL rattle
according to exactly what the definition of rattle is.  Drop it, and it WILL
rattle.

Add to it with wooden barrels, your point that after dried out, and parts
of it possibly loosened, and not only will it rattle, it will rattle
excessively.

It's just too frigging simple for them to grasp and they will say "I'm running
away" or some other nonesense when it actually the sheer stupidy of so called
educated minds that just prompts to me to shake my head and move on for awhile
until I can actually BELIEVE that they are that stubborn and ignorant to figure
out something so simple that even a "lozer" like me can do do it.

 SA> You cannot prove an empty barrel cannot rattle,

Of course not... but they WILL still hold their grounds though, as they're
slaughtered in their own stubborness.  It's just the way of old folks.

 SA> There now go and shut up and prove to yourself how big an idiot
 SA> your mate the Womble is for misleading you.

That's what he gets for not wanting to give up that tit.

 FS>> The poor guy would really *have* us then ... heh heh heh ...

 SA> No need, you have *got* yourself.

Absolutely he has.  He set himself right up for it.

 SA>  ... end of subject ... I have won ....

They won't give in though... Roy lost it for them with the admission on the WAR
deal for "lack of a better term, as he put it. The lack of a better term being
caused by the fact that it is what it is, and it can;t be called anything
EXCEPT what it is... but Roy has now tried to wriggle out of that one and
resort to more BS SPIN crap.  The same will ahppen with these two on THIS
issue.  Their theory?  If they can go on long enough after even being PROVEN to
be wrong, they can declare victory because the opponents stop responding to
them (running away as they call it) on that particualr issue just out of being
sick to
death of their ignorance.

Mark my words.  Even being proven they were wrong on this, they will STILL
rag on you and I about it... there's no doubt in my mind.  It's just their way.
 Maybe congress hasn't approved the definiton of "rattle", so it isn't so? ;>

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: ==<<FLaSHBaCK-BBS>>== part of the NYCap/Adirondack Netwo (1:267/169)