From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 23:20:26 MDT
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:53:19 +1000, Damien Broderick
<damienb@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> At 01:50 PM 6/2/03 -0700, MMB wrote:
>
>> "'concidence'? I think NOT./"
>
> A concidence is, of course, a situation where two or more events fail to
> coincide.
>
> A dyscidence is where they do coincide, but badly.
>
> Damien Broderick
Hmph. Do I detect a supercilient (as opposed to consilient) air? Just
"what" are you "trying to infer", sir? I must utter a towering infer-no.
[ :P :P :) I can't keep this up, the scare-quotes-as-emphasis gaffe is just
too hard on me. Ahem.]
Do bear in mind: there's a distinction between a dyscidence and two things
being congruntent--the latter being things (such as the classic UK-kitsch
ducks-in-flight wall appliques, more or less all flying in the same
direction) that make those fiddling with them make a small satisfied noise
and leave them alone as "good enough". Items that are dysgruntent, of
course, lead to dysgruntlement. I trust we can keep the conveersation
gruntlemanly. A conveersation is of course one that is likely to warrant a
breathalyzer test on all participants, and cause motion sickness in sane
passers-by, if present.
I cherish these little chats so... But I think I'm close to my eight if not
over.
MMB
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 23:33:23 MDT