To pee or not to pee (was: P and not-P, was Re: IRAQ sort of: Re: Tim May calls for nuking of D.C.)

From: Hubert Mania (humania@t-online.de)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 00:06:40 MST

  • Next message: Ramez Naam: "RE: Egypt (was: Bush budget has 0 dollars for afghanistan)"

    Imagining the recently acquired high tech update of the ancient reptile
    brain strategy of peeing at any long distance neighbour's garden fence, I
    said:

    > > Though Saddam can by no means pee
    > > at any WASP snow white garden fence in Washington or even San Francisco,
    >
    to which Michael Butler objected:

    > Filtering out the pejoratives, this appears to be a claim based on no
    > evidence.
    > How does one prove that someone can "by no means" do something to "any"
    > something-else, apart from physical impossibilities like creating a square
    > triangle?
    > How does one falsify the claim?

    Okay, Michael, you are right of course. Using the phrase "by no means"
    certainly was a thoughtless remark. Maybe I should have said: "Right now he
    is not able...."

    "...to pee or not to pee. That is the question."

    Thanx for this fine Shakespearian association :-)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 00:09:55 MST