|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 02/19/06 12:44
Hammerer wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45pre6F7t2ntU1@individual.net...
>
>>Hammerer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:45pil5F7csh9U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hammerer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:45hsiqF6nmvfU1@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hammerer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:45cm4jF63hfeU2@individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jack Sprat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:09:52 +0000, anthonyberet
>>>>>>>>><nospam@me.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It was a slow video of a large recording studio, and
>>>>>>>>>>an orchestra. Anyway, anyone know which artiste it
>>>>>>>>>>could have been? It had a traditional orchestral backing,
>>>>>>>>>>with a very deadpan male vocal. - In fact the lyrics were
>>>>>>>>>>pretty much spoken. Anyway, any other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Could be the David Bowie/Bing Crosby duo??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nope that has Bowie and Bing in the video.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He could have a point there, anthonyberet. Despite the fact
>>>>>>>that there's two of them in the video; they sing rather than
>>>>>>>speak the words; there's hardly any deadpan-ness in the
>>>>>>>performances (though some would argue); there's no visual
>>>>>>>sign of a recording studio or orchestra; and the song they're
>>>>>>>singing isn't 'White Christmas'.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apart from those small differences, Jack could have hit
>>>>>>>the nail on the head.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Wasn't their effort The Little Drummer Boy anyway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It certainly wasn't 'White Christmas'. This thread has been
>>>>>>>most insane. Very refreshing. Jack Sprat and D. Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>>should de-lurk more. Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incidentally, there were about 1183 versions of White Christmas
>>>>>>on that site that Petersen recommended. That is more than 542
>>>>>>which is what you said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not wrong there, anthonyberet. It's considerably more
>>>>>than I said. It's . . . . well, hundreds more, at least. It just goes
>>>>>to show, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>In fact, in my opinion 1183 versions is thousands,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As you know, I respect your opinion, anthonyberet, even when I
>>>>>don't. 1183, if I'm not mistaken (and, unlike the 'White Christmas'
>>>>>versions fiasco, I'm not) is *1* thousand, and spare change. Hundreds,
>>>>>in other words. So, in a way, despite my shite attempt at researching
>>>>>the versions, I'm still up on the deal, if you think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Think about this for a moment - if you had 10% of your legs cut
>>>>off, you would still describe the remainder as your 'legs', not your
>>>>'leg and a bit', or similar.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends where the hypothetical amputation takes place. If the 10% is
>
> taken
>
>>>off one leg - say, the foot to halfway up the shin
So which other bits did you think could be amputated whilst still
retaining 'legs'?
>>>- then it's all "the
>>>glass isn't half-full, it's half-empty", isn't it? Though I get the
>>>impression that if I hobbled into the Karaoke Bar that night and
>
> announced
>
>>>"Hi folks! I've got two legs!", everyone would say "No you haven't!
>
> You've
>
>>>got a leg and a bit, or similar!". Majority rule, anthonyberet.
>>>
>>
>>Well, obviously I didn't mean the bit between your
>>hip and half-way down your thigh.
>>
>
> What - you mean the leg? Sorry, anthonyberet! My mistake. When will I ever
> learn? Never - that's when! When you said "legs", I thought you were
> referring to "legs" - when all the time you meant "legs". Still - I like
> your idea about amputating the bits *above* the knee. That would leave me
> with a perfectly functioning foot, ankle, and shin. Of course, I'd need a
> thigh-transplant to be able to walk, but these things were sent to try us.
>
It seems that we are both referring to 'legs' plural. Need I go on?
>>The you would be one-legged, even if you carried the
>>other one around with you.
>>
>
> As opposed to having two legs (one for perambulation; one carried), and not
> a 'leg and a bit', or similar? You're contradicting yourself, anthonyberet!
>
As far as I am aware 'legedness' refers to the number of legs actually
attached to a creature. - Othewise it isn't really a leg (at least, not
in the Orwellian sense of a limb used for bodily propulsion).
As it is Sunday this morning, I am not sure about the legs of inanimate
objects like tables, tripods and carpets.
>>>>Anyway it was actually 1813 versions, so I bet you feel pretty stupid
>
> now!
>
>>>Of course! But also kinda smug, as it's still hundreds,
>>>and not thousands. Heh!
>>>
>>
>>nope, 1.8 legs is still legs and 1.8 thousands is still thousands :)
>>
>
> And £1.8 in good old sterling is "pounds"? No! It's £1 and 80 shiny, new
> pence! Twenty shiny, new pence short of *2* pounds sterling! Really,
> anthonyberet . . . . hold together a cogent argument, whu don't you?!
>
No of course 1.8 pounds sterling is not pounds - try convincing the man
in my local off-licence (or 'out-door' as they call them in some funy
parts of the country - but not here in swinging London, apart from by
immigrants from the midlands) to let you have cans of Stella plural
without pounds sterling plural!
You mustn't introduce strawman arguments, really! That's crazy talk,
although you could get lots of bags of crisps.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|