For or against? Yes?
Oliver Cromm
52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
against abortion?"
--
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
wait for next year's model.
Andrew Tanenbaum, _Computer Networks_ (1981), p. 168.
Barbara Bailey
news:1gqi2z87...@mid.crommatograph.info:
> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
52% responded that they were for abortion.
The only other interpretation I can get would be that 52% of Canadians are
smartasses.
R H Draney
>
>How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
Some editor got ahold of the result before it was published....
Reminds me of the urgent message supposedly sent out over the loudspeaker system
at an airport somewhere:
"May I have your attention please?...would all those who have not already done
so please do so immediately?...thank you"
....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Frank ess
"Stand by to disregard ... "
--
Frank ess
The UnInmate
"Oliver Cromm" <lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:1gqi2z87...@mid.crommatograph.info...
> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
My spontaneous response is "Huh?!"
angelgl...@yahoo.com
Hypothetical dialogue:
Patient: What did the X-rays show, Doc? Am I cured?
Doctor: I can answer that in the ffirmative. Your X-rays came out negative.
Patient: But I still have negative thoughts about my body.
Doctor: You should try to be more positive. If your X-rays came out
positive, that would be a reason to think negative. But your X-rays came
out negative, so try to feel more positive about yourself. I think you
can master your negative feelings.
Patient: Are you positive of that? I think you're fooling with me.
Doctor: Then my positive thoughts have been negatively construed.
tony cooper
<lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
opinion for or against.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Oliver Cromm
I went through pretty much all the stages proposed here:
52% said "yes, I am for or against abortion"? Smartasses!
No, of course they don't
It must mean that 52% were either in favor or against, not neutral
But that's an awful lot of neutral people then
...
The clarification came in the next sentence, which stated the number of
people rejecting abortion (thirty-something percent).
So it's clear that the writer meant to say what you suggested.
But can the words actually mean that?
Would that be meaning 4 in M-W?
| favoring or supporting a proposition or motion
Or related to this meaning of the noun "affirmative" from AHD?
| The side in a debate that upholds the proposition: Her team will speak
| for the affirmative.
Cambridge Advanced Learners and Oxford Compact (online) don't have a
meaning like this, is it specifically American? Or are those British
dictionaries just too small?
It is a usage that I wasn't familiar with before, I read "answer
affirmative" only as "saying yes", "agreeing".
--
Oliver C.
R H Draney
>
>Hypothetical dialogue:
>
>Patient: What did the X-rays show, Doc? Am I cured?
>
>Doctor: I can answer that in the ffirmative. Your X-rays came out negative.
>
>Patient: But I still have negative thoughts about my body.
>
>Doctor: You should try to be more positive. If your X-rays came out
>positive, that would be a reason to think negative. But your X-rays came
>out negative, so try to feel more positive about yourself. I think you
>can master your negative feelings.
>
>Patient: Are you positive of that? I think you're fooling with me.
>
>Doctor: Then my positive thoughts have been negatively construed.
Husband: "Do you always have to be so negative about everything?"
Wife: "No, never! Of course not!"
John Holmes
> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for
> or against abortion?"
48% of Canadians punched the interviewer on the nose.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Richard Yates
Below 49 degrees North we say "punched in the nose."
The UnInmate
"Oliver Cromm" <lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:bz7rrzvnb73s$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info...
>* Barbara Bailey wrote:
>
>> Oliver Cromm <lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote in
>> news:1gqi2z87...@mid.crommatograph.info:
>>
>>> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>>>
>>> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
>>> against abortion?"
>>
>> 52% responded that they were for abortion.
>>
>> The only other interpretation I can get would be that 52% of Canadians
>> are
>> smartasses.
>
> I went through pretty much all the stages proposed here:
> 52% said "yes, I am for or against abortion"? Smartasses!
> No, of course they don't
> It must mean that 52% were either in favor or against, not neutral
> But that's an awful lot of neutral people then
Not really. The abortion issue has become so politicized that it will never
be resolved (and so, by the way, have several other hot-button issues).
People are tired of the silly fanatically partisan back and forth between
anti-life advocates and anti-choice advocates and just want to stay out of
it. I'm one of them and would have told the survey taker that I have no
opinion.
Mark Brader
> >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
> >
> > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> > against abortion?"
"That's a badly written sentence that means to say that 52% approve of
abortion. No, I mean approve of abortion being legal."
Tony Cooper:
> I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
> have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
> opinion for or against.
Well, that's a unique interpretation. You're assuming the margin of
error in the poll was 2%? :-)
--
Mark Brader "In general, it is safe and legal to
Toronto kill your children and their children."
m...@vex.net -- POSIX manual, quoted by Thomas Koenig
Chuck Riggs
<lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
For. (I'd simply ignore the poor wording. There is no shortage of
idiots in this world and life is too short to wonder why.)
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Steve Hayes
>How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> against abortion?"
All of the above.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Unknown
On 19 Jul 2008 00:20:34 -0700, R H Draney posted:
"I hate maple syrup."
"Don't be so negative."
"OK. I'm positive I don't like maple syrup."
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
Unknown
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:35:07 -0700, Richard Yates posted:
>> 48% of Canadians punched the interviewer on the nose.
>
>Below 49 degrees North we say "punched in the nose."
We tend to say that above 49 degrees North, too.
angelgl...@yahoo.com
Oh, yes, we have no bananas.
jinhyun
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>
> >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> > against abortion?"
>
> I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
> have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
> opinion for or against.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Surely you don't! What it clearly means is that 42% of Canadians are
for abortion, meaning here the granting of unreserved rights to an
individual to have an abortion without the state's intervention. This
whole thread is petty and silly, and so are those Canadians. What I
can't stand are all these people dumb as mules and barely human in any
other respect who try to convince you they are smart by taking
something the Republicans say and saying the opposite.
Leslie Danks
> On Jul 19, 6:36 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>>
>> <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>>
>> > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for
>> > or against abortion?"
>>
>> I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
>> have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
>> opinion for or against.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> Surely you don't! What it clearly means is that 42% of Canadians are
> for abortion, meaning here the granting of unreserved rights to an
> individual to have an abortion without the state's intervention.
I assume your "42%" was a typo for "52%". Despite the fact that Tony
Cooper is mainly bent on livening up his day, his is the only possible
interpretation if one assumes the question to be unambiguous as posed.
Depending on the exact wording and any relevant context (e.g. this may be
a follow-up question to a previous delimiting one), this fraction of
people may or may not include not only those holding the opinion you
describe (which is the present state in Canada), but also those in favour
of abortion under certain conditions set by law.
> This
> whole thread is petty and silly, and so are those Canadians. What I
> can't stand are all these people dumb as mules and barely human in any
> other respect who try to convince you they are smart by taking
> something the Republicans say and saying the opposite.
Are there Republicans in Canada?
--
Les
tony cooper
<jinhyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 19, 6:36 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>>
>> <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>>
>> > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
>> > against abortion?"
>>
>> I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
>> have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
>> opinion for or against.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>Surely you don't! What it clearly means is that 42% of Canadians are
>for abortion,
Ah, no. It doesn't clearly mean anything. It has to be interpreted
for that reason.
tony cooper
wrote:
>jinhyun wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 6:36 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>>>
>>> <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>>>
>>> > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for
>>> > or against abortion?"
>>>
>>> I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
>>> have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
>>> opinion for or against.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> Surely you don't! What it clearly means is that 42% of Canadians are
>> for abortion, meaning here the granting of unreserved rights to an
>> individual to have an abortion without the state's intervention.
>
>I assume your "42%" was a typo for "52%". Despite the fact that Tony
>Cooper is mainly bent on livening up his day,
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Arcadian Rises
That reminds me the (now) old joke:
At an official dinner the waiter asks Bill Clinton what would he like
for entree: chicken teriyaki, beef stroganoff or a vegetarian menu?
The presidential answer was "Yes, thank you".
Leslie Danks
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:07:08 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
> wrote:
[...]
>>I assume your "42%" was a typo for "52%". Despite the fact that Tony
>>Cooper is mainly bent on livening up his day,
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
Depends how lively it is already, already.
--
Les
R H Draney
>
>On Jul 18, 7:11=EF=BF=BDpm, Oliver Cromm <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>>
> for or
>> =EF=BF=BD against abortion?"
>>
>> --
>> The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
>> from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
>> wait for next year's model.
>
>That reminds me the (now) old joke:
>At an official dinner the waiter asks Bill Clinton what would he like
>for entree: chicken teriyaki, beef stroganoff or a vegetarian menu?
>The presidential answer was "Yes, thank you".
From a sketch on "The Sonny and Cher Hour":
Danny Thomas: "I'd like a nice, thick steak."
Ted Ziegler (as waiter): "How would you like that cooked?"
Danny Thomas: "Please."
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:07:08 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
>> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>I assume your "42%" was a typo for "52%". Despite the fact that Tony
>>>Cooper is mainly bent on livening up his day,
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
>Depends how lively it is already, already.
In the past few days, I've been tearing out a drywall ceiling on a
roofed and screened-in porch. A roof leak damaged the drywall. It is
currently 90 degrees (F) outside, humid, and the drywall dust turns to
sticky mud on my sweaty body. Any break from that livens up my day.
R H Draney
>
>In the past few days, I've been tearing out a drywall ceiling on a
>roofed and screened-in porch. A roof leak damaged the drywall. It is
>currently 90 degrees (F) outside, humid, and the drywall dust turns to
>sticky mud on my sweaty body. Any break from that livens up my day.
Too bad you don't live in France...at least you could get plastered in
Paris....r
John Kane
> How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> against abortion?"
Incompetence?
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Rambler III
"John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b368bfa8-eac0-4ed7...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Incompetence?
Equivocation?
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 19, 6:36 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>
> > <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > >How would you interpret this sentence, spontaneously?
>
> > > 52% of Canadians answered affirmative to the question: "Are you for or
> > > against abortion?"
>
> > I would interpret as meaning that 54% of (the)Canadians (surveyed)
> > have an specific opinion about abortion, and that 46% have no formed
> > opinion for or against.
>
> > --
> > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> Surely you don't! What it clearly means is that 42% of Canadians are
> for abortion, meaning here the granting of unreserved rights to an
> individual to have an abortion without the state's intervention.
And "legal abortion" would have been a much better way to say it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Arcadian Rises filted:
>>
>>That reminds me the (now) old joke:
>>At an official dinner the waiter asks Bill Clinton what would he
>>like for entree: chicken teriyaki, beef stroganoff or a vegetarian
>>menu? The presidential answer was "Yes, thank you".
>
> From a sketch on "The Sonny and Cher Hour":
>
> Danny Thomas: "I'd like a nice, thick steak."
> Ted Ziegler (as waiter): "How would you like that cooked?"
> Danny Thomas: "Please."
The SCA version has a guy dressed in "barbarian" garb.
Barbarian: Meat!
Waitress: How would you like it?
Barbarian: [pulls out coin. tosses same. looks at it]
Cooked!
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Unknown
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:22:56 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum posted:
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> Arcadian Rises filted:
>>>
>>>That reminds me the (now) old joke:
>>>At an official dinner the waiter asks Bill Clinton what would he
>>>like for entree: chicken teriyaki, beef stroganoff or a vegetarian
>>>menu? The presidential answer was "Yes, thank you".
>>
>> From a sketch on "The Sonny and Cher Hour":
>>
>> Danny Thomas: "I'd like a nice, thick steak."
>> Ted Ziegler (as waiter): "How would you like that cooked?"
>> Danny Thomas: "Please."
>
>The SCA version has a guy dressed in "barbarian" garb.
>
> Barbarian: Meat!
> Waitress: How would you like it?
> Barbarian: [pulls out coin. tosses same. looks at it]
> Cooked!
My brother-in-law
"How would you like your steak?"
"Cut off it's horns, wipe its ass, and bring it to me."
Unknown
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:40:29 GMT, Rambler III posted:
Truthful. The question did not specify an exclusive or.