Re: Smoke two...
- From: Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:39:52 -0500
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <Xns9A8954BA338CFgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm hung up on what the definition of "right" is. I've
asked politely 25 times and gotten two responses, both of which
I find inadequate, for clearly stated reasons: 1. Misc gives
me the dictionary definition, but I have dictionaries too, and
if those definitions were adequate, I would have discovered that
long ago.
Please explain one way in which the definition provided is inadequate.
No pictures. :-(
"I did not discover its usefulness long ago" is not an inadequacy of the
definition.
I paraphrase: "Defining what something ISN'T doesn't tell me what it
is." - Prof. Bart
;-)
.
Once its shortcoming is revealed, I will be happy to bolster the
definition.
- References:
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Mickey
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Tom S.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Alex W.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Alex W.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Alex W.
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Smoke two...
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Smoke two...
- Prev by Date: Re: Smoke two...
- Next by Date: Re: Smoke two...
- Previous by thread: Re: Smoke two...
- Next by thread: Re: Smoke two...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|