Text 29831, 70 rader
Skriven 2006-05-17 09:59:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PHILIP LOZIER
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
-=> Quoting Philip Lozier to Stewart Arnett <=-

 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.

 PL> Really... there is no need for the parts of the wooden barrel to be
 PL> all that loose at all... nor is there a need to confine it wo wooden
 PL> barrels. 
 PL> There is no need to redefine a barrel, but maybe for those two great
 PL> educated blunders it,s time to actually define rattle.  For this
 PL> application the 
 PL> "a. to make or emit a quick succession of short percussive sounds ...
 PL> b. To move with such sounds"

 PL> or

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

 PL> definitions commonly found will do just fine.

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

Huh?  An EMPTY barrel?  No way ...

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

... [snicker] ...

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

Your best bet, Philip, is to simply stop replying to this thread.  
I know you've lost.  Roy knows you've lost.  In fact almost 
*everyone* in this echo knows you've lost, so just go away ... 
heh heh heh ... and don't worry about any *empty*, "rattling" 
barrels ... heh heh heh #2 ...

 SA> You cannot prove an empty barrel cannot rattle,

Oh, now it's the old "prove a negative".  Unfortunately *you* 
made the weird claim so the burden of proof lies with *you*.

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

Ha!  Still using the old "ageist" attack?  ... sad ...

... Dammit, Jim!  I'm a veterinarian, not a chiropractor!

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)