Wednesday, November 21, 2007

 

The answer to an eternal question

Yes.

--ER

Comments:
Ummm, what was the question??
 
But you know what? He isn't in the woods, but on a path beside the woods.
 
No, no: He is on a path *through* the woods, which means he's "in the woods"!

Get it, Frenzied??
 
No, the "path" is "in" the woods. The bear is "on" the path. Thus the bear is on a path in the woods. But the bear is not "in the woods" otherwise he wouldn't be on the path.


Beside the original phrase is not a query but a negative affirmation cast as a query. So it is a positive assumption that a bear shits in the woods, otherwise the query wouldn't be an affirmation. Now here you've gone and provided a negative proof to the negative affirmation which negates the whole damn thing according to Milton.
It will be alright once you affirm that the exception test the rule.

"Diagram the sentence", indeed! :)
 
So, if the negative rhetorical is now negated, is the opposite affirmed?

I still say he's not in the woods, so the question is still open.
 
Ye of limited context.

To consider this photo illustrative of simply one euphemism involving a bear and his relationship to the woods would be to fall short. It's additionally challenging one's ability to distinguish trees from the forest.

It's a clearly a path, lined by trees, leading to a clearing, where a bear just happens to be taking an ER...all of which is surrounded by the big-friggin'-woods.
 
That was just really un-Christian of me. I should have just used the four-letter word.

Forgiveness, brotha?
 
Man! Tough audience!

I should find a pic of the pope in the woods ...
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?