this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
$Zero
for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
"such as" or any other such expression.
that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
anything else anywhere.
which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
any other post.
it's not even a metaphor of itself.
it simply is what it is.
it's a post without a peer.
-$Zero...
this post contains no questions
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/15ad25925526f806
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
$Zero wrote:
> this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>
> for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> "such as" or any other such expression.
>
> that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> anything else anywhere.
>
> which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> any other post.
>
> it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>
> it simply is what it is.
>
> it's a post without a peer.
>
>
> -$Zero...
Well, doesn't all this make your post an analogy for a non
metephorical post?
Pies de Arcilla
> this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>
> for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> "such as" or any other such expression.
>
> that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> anything else anywhere.
>
> which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> any other post.
>
> it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>
> it simply is what it is.
>
> it's a post without a peer.
You would like to think it's a post beyond compare. But it's really
very similar to your other one which was asking no questions. Also,
you _did_ use "like" and "such as" in the process of saying there was
no use of them.
boots
>On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>>
>> for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
>> "such as" or any other such expression.
>>
>> that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
>> anything else anywhere.
>>
>> which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
>> any other post.
>>
>> it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>>
>> it simply is what it is.
>>
>> it's a post without a peer.
>
>You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
I thought he said somebody cut off its weiner.
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
$Zero
not in the post itself, no.
$Zero
> On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>
> > for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> > "such as" or any other such expression.
>
> > that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> > anything else anywhere.
>
> > which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> > any other post.
>
> > it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>
> > it simply is what it is.
>
> > it's a post without a peer.
>
> You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
i couldn't care less whether it is or isn't.
> But it's really very similar to your other one which was
> asking no questions.
that post was a post without questions.
this one is a post without metaphors (or analogies).
how are they AT ALL similar?
let alone "very similar."
> Also, you _did_ use "like" and "such as" in the process
> of saying there was no use of them.
there was no comparative use of those words in stand-alone sentences
in which they were used to compare something.
very similar to saying:
this post is not about [name variable]
and then proceeding to write absolutely nothing to do with the named
variable.
or are you claiming that simply naming the variable makes it
impossible not to write about it?
try it.
this post is not about [name variable]
-$Zero...
the way words work
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9f37a3d1b1d8a631
$Zero
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>
> >> for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> >> "such as" or any other such expression.
>
> >> that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> >> anything else anywhere.
>
> >> which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> >> any other post.
>
> >> it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>
> >> it simply is what it is.
>
> >> it's a post without a peer.
>
> >You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
>
> I thought he said somebody cut off its weiner.
shut the fuck up and blow me.
-$Zero...
this is the dullest essay you'll ever read
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ddd2beff4477227a
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:16�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
> >
> > > for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> > > "such as" or any other such expression.
> >
> > > that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> > > anything else anywhere.
> >
> > > which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> > > any other post.
> >
> > > it's not even a metaphor of itself.
> >
> > > it simply is what it is.
> >
> > > it's a post without a peer.
> >
> > You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
>
> i couldn't care less whether it is or isn't.
>
> > But it's really very similar to your other one which was
> > asking no questions.
>
> that post was a post without questions.
>
> this one is a post without metaphors (or analogies).
>
> how are they AT ALL similar?
>
> let alone "very similar."
They're both self-referential posts which claim not to do something.
They both seem like variations on one idea.
>
> > Also, you _did_ use "like" and "such as" in the process
> > of saying there was no use of them.
>
> there was no comparative use of those words in stand-alone sentences
> in which they were used to compare something.
>
> very similar to saying:
>
> this post is not about [name variable]
>
> and then proceeding to write absolutely nothing to do with the named
> variable.
But if the post has nothing else in it, then the statement is false;
it _is_ about what it says it is not about. Even if it does have more
to it, it is arguably about what it says it is not about if that is
the only interesting feature it has. There's not necessarily a paradox
involved, just a post with a false self-referential statement.
> or are you claiming that simply naming the variable makes it
> impossible not to write about it?
I don't particularly like the sort of paradoxes which arise from self-
referential statements with negations in them. Why not make a
_positive_ statement that is self-consistent?
boots
>On Jul 25, 6:21?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>>
>> >> for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
>> >> "such as" or any other such expression.
>>
>> >> that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
>> >> anything else anywhere.
>>
>> >> which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
>> >> any other post.
>>
>> >> it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>>
>> >> it simply is what it is.
>>
>> >> it's a post without a peer.
>>
>> >You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
>>
>> I thought he said somebody cut off its weiner.
>
>shut the fuck up and blow me.
No.
But you have reminded me of the one job advertisement I've seen in the
past few years that seemed potentially interesting: "Trainee
explosives technician". Sad that I didn't have time to play, it might
have been fun.
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 12:16 am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 8:14 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
>
> > > > for instance, you'll note that there are no uses of the word "like" or
> > > > "such as" or any other such expression.
>
> > > > that's because this post makes no comparison whatsoever in regards to
> > > > anything else anywhere.
>
> > > > which logically means that it also makes no comparison whatsoever to
> > > > any other post.
>
> > > > it's not even a metaphor of itself.
>
> > > > it simply is what it is.
>
> > > > it's a post without a peer.
>
> > > You would like to think it's a post beyond compare.
>
> > i couldn't care less whether it is or isn't.
>
> > > But it's really very similar to your other one which was
> > > asking no questions.
>
> > that post was a post without questions.
>
> > this one is a post without metaphors (or analogies).
>
> > how are they AT ALL similar?
>
> > let alone "very similar."
>
> They're both self-referential posts which claim not to do something.
and that somehow makes them "very similar"?
so, when one considers every point in the universe which occupies it's
own unique space, if you were to compare any two points you would
characterize them as very similar just because they were both self-
referential and not doing (or being) something (or somewhere) else?
> They both seem like variations on one idea.
i don't see how.
one was about metaphors (and analogies) and the other was about
opinions.
what's the "one idea" upon which they are variations of?
not being something other than what they uniquely are?
yikes.
> > > Also, you _did_ use "like" and "such as" in the process
> > > of saying there was no use of them.
>
> > there was no comparative use of those words in stand-alone sentences
> > in which they were used to compare something.
>
> > very similar to saying:
>
> > this post is not about [name variable]
>
> > and then proceeding to write absolutely nothing to do with the named
> > variable.
>
> But if the post has nothing else in it, then the statement is false;
perhaps i could have phrased that a bit better:
"and then proceeding to write [something which has]
absolutely nothing to do with the named variable."
> it _is_ about what it says it is not about.
nope.
> Even if it does have more
> to it, it is arguably about what it says it is not about if that is
> the only interesting feature it has.
if.
that's a big if.
so no.
> There's not necessarily a paradox involved,
who said anything about there being a paradox involved?
for instance:
what was paradoxical about the "no opinions" post?
what was paradoxical about the "no metaphors" post?
seriously.
i can't think of anything that was paradoxical about either of those
posts.
interesting?
yes.
but not paradoxical.
> just a post with a false self-referential statement.
neither of those two posts had false self-referential statements.
the bowling bowl thinger i wrote later did.
but not the "no opinions" or "no metaphors" posts.
> > or are you claiming that simply naming the variable makes it
> > impossible not to write about it?
>
> I don't particularly like the sort of paradoxes which arise from self-
> referential statements with negations in them.
those two posts didn't qualify as paradoxes as far as i can tell.
> Why not make a
> _positive_ statement that is self-consistent?
is there something negative about not being an opinion?
is how is that somehow non-self-consistent?
is there something negative about not being a metaphor?
and how is that somehow non-self-consistent?
yikes.
-$Zero...
this post is not about making sense
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9356fff785b72a62