Stephen wrote:
> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.

I didn't think you were arguing, no. I meant it's "not really" that people 
leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Ooo! that's rude. :D
>
>Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to people 
>like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips (since the 
>entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.
>
I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4. But it is
off air for another month. :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
>> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>
>I didn't think you were arguing, no. 

But I often do ;)

>I meant it's "not really" that people 
>leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

I thought that some people ignored "A well regulated Militia" but that's what
you get when you only hear it third or forth hand. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You fail to mention *why* it stuck.

I remember having to explain to someone why the linebackers were all 
crouching up and down after sacking the quarterback one time. Apparently the 
cameraman knew what it meant but the rest of the people involved in picking 
which camera was sent out over the feed didn't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I thought that some people ignored "A well regulated Militia"

Yes. I tried to explain why they ignored it. I.e., for the same reason 
people would take a sentence that said

"Red cars being uncommonly prone to speeding, nobody should go above 50KPH 
inside city limits"

doesn't apply only to red cars.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:47:00 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Yes. I tried to explain why they ignored it.

You did, you did. But I think that it might be deliberate out of convenience or
just plain ignorance. But them I have been called a little bit cynical from time
to time.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
>>
>> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.
> 
> You can't debate fools, all they do is drag you down to their level.
> And, their level is to never read the actual document, but instead read
> one of dozens of *reposted* copies of a list of supposed "problems"
> published by some moron on the Liberty University website. For those
> that don't know, this is a super-right wing, Biblical literalist, so
> called college, which recently tried to have its "Bible Science" courses
> accredited by other colleges as valid for the use as entry requirements
> for more advanced classes, like molecular biology and physics. They are
> serious nutcases.
> 

Ack, please don't mention LU. It is just a short drive down the road,
and I don't want them to know a real subversive internet user is in the
area.

That joint and the hatred they used to broadcast on TV every Saturday
and Sunday mornings was the reason for more people leaving their faith
than many I have known. Unfortunately, it was also the reason for more
hate being passed around by those that found the warm glow of a TV to be
a soothing way to spend a morning.

> Among their other gems have been the suggestion that the government or
> doctors could "withdraw" funds from your bank account via automatic
> payment, when the actual section refers to streamlining the process of
> doctors *paying* to and from insurance companies, instead of having to
> send them paper checks, or other less efficient stuff.
> 

"On noes, the HMO wants to take moneys out of my accounts with a balance
transfer. I should pay them in pennies just to teach them that no one
pays with . . .

What? You mean it is the same as paying with an electronic check?

The intarwebs is teh devil! Tell our government 'No Electronic Checks'!"

> In some cases they just leave to the point of pure stupidity.
>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> Completely off topic,
> 
> This is the place for it, ye ken.
> 

I remember typing that and thinking "I can put a strange anecdote after
it." But I don't remember typing or deleting said story.

> 
> Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
> 10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
> healthy. <g>
> 

Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first?
*walking out the door* Am I closer yet?!

>>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
> 
>> Both.
> 
> Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(

Antibiotics for me. Not the good antibiotics that make you feel better
in a day or two, but the kind where you feel slightly less awful for a week.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:39:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know
>>> why you said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>>
>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
> 
> But I often do ;)

No you don't! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:35:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Ooo! that's rude. :D
>>
>>Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to
>>people like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips
>>(since the entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.
>>
> I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4.
> But it is off air for another month. :(

I know, we're off for 3 weeks because Jon is.  Another 2 weeks, I think.

Do you get Colbert as well?

Jim

Post a reply to this message