Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Water molecules adhere to surfaces to produce the condition or feeling of being wet.  The water itself is not wet as I posted the 1st time. 

Yes, as I posted the second time correcting my "saying" so you could understand it, when you touch water you get wet. "Water is wet" is a saying and is not meant to be taken literally, it means touching water gets you wet. 

Posted
Just now, BuffaloSol said:

Yes, as I posted the second time correcting my "saying" so you could understand it, when you touch water you get wet. "Water is wet" is a saying and is not meant to be taken literally, it means touching water gets you wet. 

Not what you said though. You said "Water is Wet." Why not talk about how the pope ***** in the woods if you wanted to make a more obvious statement?

Posted
Just now, BuffaloSol said:

Yes, as I posted the second time correcting my "saying" so you could understand it, when you touch water you get wet. "Water is wet" is a saying and is not meant to be taken literally, it means touching water gets you wet. 

 

Your explanation is all wet. :lol:

Posted
Just now, BuffaloSol said:

Yes, as I posted the second time correcting my "saying" so you could understand it, when you touch water you get wet. "Water is wet" is a saying and is not meant to be taken literally, it means touching water gets you wet. 

 

So "water is wet" is a metaphor for something being what it is, even though water isn't wet.

 

That's actually a pretty bad metaphor.  From now on, I'm using "Yeah, and water is an oxygen atom with two hydrogen - sometimes one hydrogen and one deuterium - atoms bound to it."

Posted
8 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I wouldn't say that at all. There's  a fair bit of conflicting info out there, now, but some definitely points to McCoy. None of us know yet. 

 

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

The only thing I've seen pointing to McCoy is the woman's friend's instagram post and her lawyer's press release.  

 

This. 

 

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

It appears that McCoy was an intermediary for the jewelry loan, which is pretty suggestive. I'm not saying that'll get him convicted or anything like that, but he's hardly out of the woods. Who turned off the cameras? We haven't found that out yet either. If she didn't, it's also suggestive. 

 

So what if he was the intermediary for the jewelry loan?  And what if she turned off the cameras?

Posted
20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Why would I argue with myself?  I'm right, and you're wrong.  There is NOT a "ticking clock," there is a process, which is open ended, during which a tenant has a right of residency.

 

There is NOTHING open ended about it. 

 

 

Posted
Just now, Peter said:

 

There is NOTHING open ended about it. 

 

 

Except that the tenant can drag it on and on and on...

1 minute ago, Doc said:

So what if he was the intermediary for the jewelry loan?  And what if she turned off the cameras?

 

More to the point, "What if?" doesn't point to anything.

Posted

So anyway, the big takeaway seems to be that that we're watching an idiots edition the game Clue being played in which the players are analogues of Jeff Gillooly, Shawn Eckhardt, LaVona Golden, and Tonja Harding. I'm not sure there's a Nancy Kerrigan analogue (yet), however ...

Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

Except that the tenant can drag it on and on and on...

 

More to the point, "What if?" doesn't point to anything.

 

Yup.  And we can "what if" all day long.

Posted
3 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Not what you said though. You said "Water is Wet." Why not talk about how the pope ***** in the woods if you wanted to make a more obvious statement?

 

Or a bear being catholic?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

There is NOTHING open ended about it. 

 

 

Which is something someone who doesn’t understand the full process of eviction would say. Go back to Westlaw and look into it a little more petey.

Posted
Just now, dave mcbride said:

So anyway, the big takeaway seems to be that that we're watching an idiots edition the game Clue being played in which the players are analogues of Jeff Gillooly, Shawn Eckhardt, LaVona Golden, and Tonja Harding. I'm not sure there's a Nancy Kerrigan analogue (yet), however ...

 

I think of it as more of a remake of The Usual Suspects, starring Seth Rogen as Keyser Soze.

Posted
1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Yup.  And we can "what if" all day long.

 

What if we "what if'd" all day long?  Would water be wet?  

Posted
3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

This. 

 

 

So what if he was the intermediary for the jewelry loan?  And what if she turned off the cameras?

1) It establishes a motive. 2) If she turned them off, it's not good for her. But we have no idea whether she did. We don't know enough at the moment. Look: trouble has a habit of following the guy, and he appears to be a blockhead. We'll see what happens, but it's way too soon to draft him for your fantasy team. 

Posted
Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I can barely keep up with these metaphors. :lol:

 

It now occurs to me that "water is wet" is a pretty good metaphor for "water is wet," given that water isn't really wet and "water is wet" isn't really a metaphor.

 

Now I'm confused...

Posted
2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

So "water is wet" is a metaphor for something being what it is, even though water isn't wet.

 

That's actually a pretty bad metaphor.  From now on, I'm using "Yeah, and water is an oxygen atom with two hydrogen - sometimes one hydrogen and one deuterium - atoms bound to it."

 

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Your explanation is all wet. :lol:

 

6 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Not what you said though. You said "Water is Wet." Why not talk about how the pope ***** in the woods if you wanted to make a more obvious statement?

I thought I was talking to normal people that have heard these sayings before not a buzzfeed clickbait article regurgitated that says "Stump all your friends, 10 sayings that are actually false."

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, dubs said:

 

 

The stat you cite is in this book?  Or a book about the topic. Two very different things. 

 

 

What stat do you want, I only quoted one stat. You seem to be asserting that I quoted 2. The first one is well known and accurate regarding false crime reports. When someone says 50 50 its a figure of speech, never said it was a stat. If it was a stat I would of said it was. You do know the difference between a stat and a figure of speech, right. Or does that need to be explained to you too. Just like the fact that people who  insist that women inflict abuse on themselves without evidence are !@#$s.

 

Edited by MURPHD6
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...