 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_inventions
Seriously, you don't even need to click that. The URL says it all!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let's see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything
Yep.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Let's see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything
>
> Yep.
>
>
...and so does nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
"""
many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a
noun: there is not any object it refers to.
"""
That's not what makes something a noun. :-) A noun is something that is
plural, can be made plural, or can be made possessive.
If the philosophers were right, it would seem there is no part of speech
that the word "nothing" occupies. Plus, sentences like "what is stored
in the box?" would be nonsense if everything were outside the box, as
the normal answer "nothing" would be referring to "nothing". (I.e., if
"nothing" is not a noun because it doesn't refer to any object, then any
word that refers to the concept of "nothing" would also not be a noun.)
Those wacky philosophers never manage to get their levels of abstraction
right.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:484e6654@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
>> Let's see:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
> ...and so does nothing
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
>
> John
ah ..... everything AND nothing all in one place .... gotta love that!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
>
> """
> many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a
> noun: there is not any object it refers to.
> """
I wonder if they consider 0 a number?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
>>
>> """
>> many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a
>> noun: there is not any object it refers to.
>> """
>
> I wonder if they consider 0 a number?
What about 'vacuum'? It refers explicitly to a non-object.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> ah ..... everything AND nothing all in one place .... gotta love that!
You're everywhere and nowhere baby, that's where you're at.
[Mumbles something about off-road vehicles and headgear...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> What about 'vacuum'? It refers explicitly to a non-object.
Define "vacuum". Technically speaking there can't be true vacuum in the
universe, due to some whackiness of quantum physics.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh my God!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stub_%28electronics%29
The article on stubs... is... a stub article!! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
