| From: | Michael Broadwater <neon@******.BACKBONE.OLEMISS.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [OT] Nuances of Language |
| Date: | Thu, 7 May 1998 14:01:23 -0500 |
>>Nexx wrote:
>>/
>>/ ----------
>>/ > From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
>>/
>>/ > But Shadowrun would still be
>>/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
>>/
>>/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got
to be
>>/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
>>/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>>/ different.
>
>Wow, I've seen some trolls in my time, but that was one of the more
>annoying.
Don't you hate it when you snip to much?
"And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
different." works."
Is what I was refering to. And, to clarify my point, while David meant
this as humor (I think), this is illogical, and he knows it (or should).
The only possible reason you make an arguement like this is to get people
to keep arguing. The cake analogy makes more sense. I'd like to see
anyone get through a math or logic course using the previous statement.
Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand and Dwarven Illuminati
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
