The Coast | News, events, restaurants, concerts and Burger Week for Halifax, Nova Scotia
Home of the Best of Halifax Reader's Choice Awards, the award-winning independent newspaper covers the Halifax news, politics, events, concerts, movies, restaurants, and nightlife scene.
While reading another bitch I was irked, I can’t take it anymore. “Cement” is a material used to make concrete, mortar and grout. Barriers dividing a highway are not “cement.” Neither are sidewalks, buildings or basements. That would be like walking down the bread aisle and calling it flour. —Canned Soup
This article appears in Jan 31 – Feb 6, 2013.
38 Comments
Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
Holy time travel shit man, you have given yourself away… Is this a plea for help or are you just looking for some companionship.
Having time travelling myself I know how isolating it can be seeing you mother and not being able to say hello or hug her, or see you children all grown up and not being able to say how proud of them you are…
My thoughts are with you man…
Your speaking from the future, I believe you.
Get it right!
Posted on Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM
http://degenerateramblers.com/2011/04/kidn…
OP: Picky, picky……
Irksome, Dog.
Kinda like when people call you an asshole, but you are clearly an insufferable asshole?
Wow, it seems the moderator has come upon a wrinkle in the space-time continuum. I can just imagine right now there’s a person thinking about how people continually interchange the words “cement” and “concrete” when they’re not the same at all and DAMMIT, I’m going to write a bitch about it.
You beat yourself to the punch OP.
They just made a movie based on that classified ad, Sonic. Dunno the title though.
Wait..it’s not Flour?, well fuck me.
What about cement shoes?
i didnt know that!
What happened to the weekend? Nurse did we meet and have a lost weekend?
The weekend just started Timothy 🙂
How can it be, it says Monday the 4th. I missed the shows at the Lions Head, I missed singing.
Don’t you be sayin that it aint no cement pond…
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsyti5ZG…
They should call it the Lions Ass, cause their food tastes like it was cooked in one.
Who says you have to eat. People go there for the show and the fun.
Hugo’s picture answers Painey’s question on another thread about whether or not wogshite owns a gun.
Ivan I have no need for a gun, I am loved by many. Who needs a gun.??
THE DENOTATIVE REFERENCE OF TERMS
“‘Concrete’ is a material used to make cement, mortar and grout.” Canned Soup
This raises an interesting philosophical dilemma, the denotative reference of terms. For example, when does a shrub become a bush? When does a bush become a tree?
While there may be structural distinctions, the difference is often not evident to the naked eye.
The same, it seems to me, is the question surrounding the transformation from concrete into cement. At what point in the transformation is it appropriate to classify the substance as “concrete” and at what further point as “cement.” What factors come into play? Would it be solidity, density or liquidity?
The distinction might initially appear to be merely a physical problem but on further reflection it takes on a denotative dimension – what to call it – which, in turn, entails fine discriminating judgements between words and things. In other words, it is ultimately a philosophical problem but then, what isn’t?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
To be really picky, you probably want to specify whether the cement in question is Portland cement, asphalt cement, rubber cement…you get the idea.
People actually make the same mistake you bitched about when they call the stuff that makes up most road surfaces “asphalt”. In fact the asphalt concrete that makes up our road surfaces is only about 5 percent asphalt cement.
what is is, silly sunday? mm had the whole process reversed, turning concrete back into cement. which would make it, i suppose, an alchemical question.
and make mine a nice shrubbery please, or i shall say NI! til your ears blled.
THE DENOTATIVE REFERENCE OF TERMS (II)
“‘Cement’ is a material used to make concrete, mortar and grout.” Canned Soup
RSVP
: Good dog Molly (02/03, 12:08PM)
By Jove, Good dog, I think you’re right! Instead of saying, as I did, “At what point in the transformation is it appropriate to classify the substance as “concrete” and at what further point as ‘cement,’ I should have said, “At what point in the transformation is it appropriate to classify the substance as ‘cement’ and at what further point as ‘concrete'”. Damn, you can see I wouldn’t be much good on the building site but then, who gives a damn? I don’t. However, I’m afraid I found your concluding assertion to the effect that you would say “NI til your ears blled” (sic) to be unintelligible and probably incoherent. Perhaps your still upset about my recent improper question relating to your, um, gender and you have every right to be. What a clod!
But I also think my main point still stands. What is that main point? It is the phenomenon of change itself. I think Canned Soup is gesturing at the ephemeral nature of reality. Everything changes sooner or later, including us. One can’t help thinking of the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus (no, no, not “Heraclitoris”) who famously asserted that, “One cannot step twice into the same river as fresh waters are forever flowing in upon us.” I interpret this to mean that it’s not just the “fresh waters” which are changing but “us” as well as a consequence just of their flowing in upon us.
To unpack this in terms of my “denotative reference of terms,” there seems to be significant conceptual slippage between the object denoted (the object undergoing change) and us, the ones doing the denoting (since we are changing as well). But what does all this mean?
Well, the keener philosophy students among us will immediately ask of Heraclitus just how he knew this. If everything is changing, including Heraclitus himself, on what grounds can he make any substantive claim to knowledge at all, assuming of course, that knowledge, in order to be knowledge, must have at least some minimal degree of stability. But, in Heraclitus’ world, there is no such minimal degree of stability and so Heraclitus condemns himself to incoherence out of his own mouth (“ex suae orae” as we say in Latin).
Now of course, the other major pre-Socratic philosopher was Parmenides. He claimed that nothing changes. But I think I shall leave that for another time.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I’m sorry not all of us work in construction. I’m sure your doctor gets irritated every time you use a medical term incorrectly..
What do you mean, “Flash Gordon, approaching”?
ack, guilt of incoherence as charged m’love. the word should have been BLEED. and then one would have to be a monty python fan to have that reference make any sense at all.
always surprised that you, of all people, would NOT be a python fan. perhaps i rate your mind too highly. strange that. i am rarely wrong.
Good OP.
It’s like when people erroneously refer to “atoms” when they are speaking of “molecules”…drives me nuts.
RSVP
: Good dog Molly (02/04, 9:47AM)
An interesting comment, Good dog. There’s some meat here to, um, chew on.
I think the thrust of your claim is that, having previously rated my mind too highly, you now feel compelled to re-assess that rating in view of my limited devotion to Python. Implied, of course, is the claim that there exists a relation of equivalence between those who have high quality minds on the one hand and who are fans of Python on the other.
But is this true? Is there a direct correlation as you seem to suppose between intelligence and being a Python fan? I would argue, in spite of your claim that you are rarely wrong, that your claim must be demonstrated rather than simply asserted. It is, as you will have noted, a widespread failing of many on this site.
I trust you will begin work on demonstrating your unquestioned equivalence as soon as possible.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“”THE DENOTATIVE REFERENCE OF TERMS
“‘Concrete’ is a material used to make cement, mortar and grout.” “”
Huh? I think you mean the “ass-backwards misquoting of terms”.
That’s NOT what the OP said, and it is also factually incorrect. Put that in your ESL thesaurus and smoke it, lol…
mm,
a skit…
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas referee a soccer game played by German and Greek philosophers. By that point, all the people who don’t get it have flipped the channel.
always anecdotal, but logical…one can be intelligent and NOT like the python, but i doubt one who is stupid could or would. it would just be puzzling.
Can we look at this bitch through a philosophical perspective?
RSVPs
: Bad Mr Frisky (02/04, 8:30PM)
See my correction of 02/03, 4:15PM, you buffoon.
: Good Dog Molly (8:52PM)
Your analogy was a bit puzzling, Good Dog. Was the point that the referees, Augustine and Aquinas, were applying theological rules for the match while the players, the Greek and German philosophers, were playing according to the rules laid down by the criteria of secular and possibly even existential humanism? The mind boggles under the philosophical load.
But I do agree with your claim that while intelligence can be manifested in a variety of ways, i.e., one may or may not like Python, stupidity never manifests such latitude since, being stupid, one necessarily fails to understand Python (or anything else) at all.
: Senor Campana (02/05, 7:12AM)
I believe that the correct wording should be “from a philosophical perspective.” But your asking the question at all indicates a quantum leap in intelligence over your previous posts.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
: montrealman (02/05 9:35PM)
A quantum leap occurs at the submicroscopic level, so it is a very small measure of distance. If this was the point of your post towards Senor Campana, then I agree. If it was not, then your welcome for the lesson. I do what I can, teaching is in my blood and students always come first.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
RSVP
: Sonic Love (02/05, 9:58AM)
Senor Campana functions only at the submicroscopic level. It was his leap, rather than the measure of distance, to which I wanted to draw attention.
As the 18th. century lexicographer Samuel Johnson said about the walking, dog,”The wonder is not that he does not do it well. The wonder is that he does it at all.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
: montrealman (02/05 12:26PM)
We are in agreement, a friendship is born. I love you and want to make endless eye contact with you. Samuel Johnson is also a fraud. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but his wife Elizabeth “Tetty” Porter was behind everything.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
RSVP
Montrealman equalivent to Narcissism. Need I say more or are you going to analize this comment on a molecular level.
Always a joy.
RSVPs
: Sonic Love (02/05, 12:38PM)
Samuel Johnson a fraud? Well Sir, I’m going to give you a good thrashing!
: Senor Campana (8:20PM)
I’m not going to analyze your comment on the molecular or any other level. The reason for that is that it is incoherent. “Montrealman” is noun, a substantive, whereas “Narcissim” is a psychological condition. Your claim that there is a relation of equivalency between the two requires substantiation, not merely unfounded assertion.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
: montrealman (02/06, 10:02AM)
I would like to take back my comment on Samuel Johnson. I just thought his wife was hot and has been a victim of historians selective perception. I cannot in good conscience slander the man any more based on my attraction to his wife, I am sorry.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
LOLOL! Like the “meterorologists saying, “temp-a chur”.