Where you from, Long Island???

[NonEntity]

Just kidding, just kidding.

I just listened to last week's show (Nov. 26, '11) and I have two issues.

1) Work and effective. You (Marc) made a big deal about how these are so very, very different. Okay, bubs, you gotzta 'splain that one to me.
In my understanding these two words are synonymous. If something is ineffective that means that it didn't work (for the purpose intended.) "Did it work?" means, "Was it effective for that which you applied it?"

Obviously you see the world through different lenses, but I am totally (like TOTALLY) not seeing your distinction. So please, Lucy, 'splain it to me.

2) FRIVOLOUS!!! You went into a discussion of "frivolous" and how it was so obvious and all. Then you gave some examples of things that were, on their very faces, FRIVOLOUS. I think the second of these was the "fifth." Okay. Again Lucy, please 'splain that one to me. The fifth amendment to the federal CONstitution says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. So when I say I won't be a witness against myself by providing material that you will use against me... you call this obviously a FRIVOLOUS claim? ??? Say WHUT?

I think your thinking needs some pru freeding, but I kud be rong.

- NonE



P.S. Now that I've raked you over the proverbs and the coals and such, let me say that otherwise it was a really good show. I shudda sed that at the top of this post, but I was too wrapped up in ad hominumizing, outrage, self-righteous indignation, and typical human nature to do so.

[Dionysus]

I declare this post frivolous in the extreme, and exhort you to get a toupée with some brains in it.

[zonsb]

(12-03-2011 12:42 AM)Dionysus Wrote:  I declare this post frivolous in the extreme, and exhort you to get a toupée with some brains in it.

Fantastic! Declare something extremely frivolous. And there's extreme frivolousness. Frivolous to the extreme. Though it may not be grammatically correct/proper (ugh!) I like, extreme frivolous. Agent Smith, you are extreme frivolous; "off with his head," declared the Queen of Frivolous.

--

[Marc Stevens]

(12-02-2011 11:11 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Just kidding, just kidding.

I just listened to last week's show (Nov. 26, '11) and I have two issues.

1) Work and effective. You (Marc) made a big deal about how these are so very, very different. Okay, bubs, you gotzta 'splain that one to me.
In my understanding these two words are synonymous. If something is ineffective that means that it didn't work (for the purpose intended.) "Did it work?" means, "Was it effective for that which you applied it?"

Obviously you see the world through different lenses, but I am totally (like TOTALLY) not seeing your distinction. So please, Lucy, 'splain it to me.

2) FRIVOLOUS!!! You went into a discussion of "frivolous" and how it was so obvious and all. Then you gave some examples of things that were, on their very faces, FRIVOLOUS. I think the second of these was the "fifth." Okay. Again Lucy, please 'splain that one to me. The fifth amendment to the federal CONstitution says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. So when I say I won't be a witness against myself by providing material that you will use against me... you call this obviously a FRIVOLOUS claim? ??? Say WHUT?

I think your thinking needs some pru freeding, but I kud be rong.

- NonE

P.S. Now that I've raked you over the proverbs and the coals and such, let me say that otherwise it was a really good show. I shudda sed that at the top of this post, but I was too wrapped up in ad hominumizing, outrage, self-righteous indignation, and typical human nature to do so.

I think in normal usage, they are referring to the same thing. What I was addressing though was the idea that "does it work" means does a bureaucrat/politician always agree with it. I had an agent on a consult and that phrase is a trap.


As far as the frivolous part, yeah, I failed on giving a good example.