To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.geekOpen lugnet.off-topic.geek in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Geek / 647
646  |  648
Subject: 
Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date: 
Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:01:50 GMT
Viewed: 
2330 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> [...]
> Another interesting twist on that -- but a different way:  A larger, or more
> specific, common thing between us is that we're both *male* geeks.  But now
> if one makes the statement, "male geeks aren't very common," then that's
> probably more false than it is true, given the assumptions the listener
> probably makes (that "male geeks" is being compared to "all geeks" rather
> than to "all people").
> 
> Oh my.  So, which of the following statements is more common-English-true
> than the other?
> 
>    1) Male nurses are uncommon.
>    2) Male geeks are uncommon.
> 
> Now which of those statements is more Math-true than the other?  [...]

I forgot adult LEGO-ness!  It's a wonderful opportunity to make a very
confusing and misleading true statment!  :)  :)

   Male adult LEGO fans are quite uncommon.

Hee hee!  It's true!!  :)

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
 
(...) Yet another definition clash -- LOL! -- this just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger. Now I'm totally confusticated. :) In common English usage, does the phrase "common denominator" mean "denominators in common" (common within some (...) (27 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

30 Messages in This Thread:












Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR