[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proofs and people
--- "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
wrote:
> >
> > Well, I guess there's my caveat. We don't
> publicly agree on things like
> > stupid and bloodthirsty. I think Radiohead
> borders on stupid. Others
> > here certainly don't.
>
> I would say you're starting at the wrong end, then.
Oh...I stopped staring a LONG time ago.
>
> Rather than define "stupid" as "Radiohead and
> anything which resembles it
> too closely", or whatever, why not come up with a
> more objective
> definition -- one that has no need of Radiohead for
> a reference point?
Radiohead wasn't used as a reference point for a
definition. It was an example of word usage.
> Once you've done that, it *may* turn out that
> Radiohead still matches your
> definition of "stupid", and you may be able to
> convince people of that, if
> you and they have already agreed on a definition of
> "stupid" -- but first
> you have to demonstrate to them that you're not
> loading the dice.
...goose...gander...
stud
Kelvin
=====
What if the hokey-pokey really IS what it's all about?!?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: