Hi, my real name is Percy, but you may call me rubber lips.

-- 
The possibility of easy and painless self-destruction is the only thing that 
constantly and considerably ameliorates the horror of life.  Suicide is a 
means to escape from the world and its tortures -- and is therefore good.

--Fruit Pie The Magician

I've no use for intellectuals in this outfit.  What we need are chimpanzees. 
Let me give you a word of advice: never say a word to me about being 
intelligent.  I will think for you, my recruit.  Don't forget it, or I'll 
have your ass for supper!

--Colonel Edmund J. Burke
    Philosopher / Landlord

Not that I wish to start an argument or anything, BUT

If you have an axe, and you have had it for twenty years, and during
that time you've changed the axe head four times and the shaft twice,
do you still have the same axe or not? 

We know that the idea of axe exists in the world of perfect objects
that we use as a central point of reference when assigning meaning to
random sounds or collection of shapes, but does the idea of one
individual axe exist there? 

I haven't crossposted this.  I wonder what would happen if I had?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:22:58 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

[Trigger's Broom Paradox]

>I haven't crossposted this.  I wonder what would happen if I had? 

You'd get someone telling you that Platonic essentialism is bollocks.

And they'd be right.
-- 
Jaf - anarchatntlworlddotcom
  jjj.wns.pb.hx/cvgj

The entity calling itself Cherry Chapstick wrote:
>
> If you have an axe, and you have had it for twenty years, and during
> that time you've changed the axe head four times and the shaft twice,
> do you still have the same axe or not?

Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
post. 

Thanking you.

-- 
There's a neon light ablaze

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:15:11 +0100, August West 
wrote:

>Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
>post. 

Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
EXIST.

The entity calling itself Cherry Chapstick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:15:11 +0100, August West 
> wrote:
>
>>Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
>>post. 
>
> Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
> EXIST.

But surely they live on in our hearts?

-- 
she might think that I've forgotten her; don't tell her it isn't so

August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself Cherry Chapstick wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:15:11 +0100, August West 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
>>>post. 
>>
>> Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
>> EXIST.
>
> But surely they live on in our hearts?

Which one's Lewis Hamilton's girlfriend?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:44:13 +0000 (UTC), "Fevric J. Glandules"
<fjg@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>> Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
>>> EXIST.
>>
>> But surely they live on in our hearts?
>
>Which one's Lewis Hamilton's girlfriend?

All of them.  He's a modern man, dontcha know.

Cherry Chapstick wrote:
> Not that I wish to start an argument or anything, BUT
>
> If you have an axe, and you have had it for twenty years, and during
> that time you've changed the axe head four times and the shaft twice,
> do you still have the same axe or not?

No but you still have something called an axe and the Sugababes (the
people) stil have something called the Sugababes (the name).

In article , 
azure@invalid.really.really says...
> 
> Not that I wish to start an argument or anything, BUT
> 
> If you have an axe, and you have had it for twenty years, and during
> that time you've changed the axe head four times and the shaft twice,
> do you still have the same axe or not? 
> 
> We know that the idea of axe exists in the world of perfect objects
> that we use as a central point of reference when assigning meaning to
> random sounds or collection of shapes, but does the idea of one
> individual axe exist there? 
> 
> I haven't crossposted this.  I wonder what would happen if I had? 

The "my grandfather's axe" conundrum is well-known to the Sheddi.
I /think/ the usual answer is - and I paraphrase a little - "Who gives 
a toss as long as you can still knock a nail in with it?"

Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

> I haven't crossposted this.  I wonder what would happen if I had? 

You might get a better class of abuse.

-- 
^Ï^.         Sn!pe          <http://snipeco.ath.cx> (my test page)

My pet rock Gordon is hanging on to boost his pension.

Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:15:11 +0100, August West 
> wrote:
> 
> >Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
> >post. 
> 
> Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
> EXIST. 

Bloody figments.

-- 
^Ï^.         Sn!pe          <http://snipeco.ath.cx> (my test page)

My pet rock Gordon is hanging on to boost his pension.

And snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) was like:

> Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:15:11 +0100, August West 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Please not be using the words "Sugarbabes" and "shaft" in the same
>> >post. 
>> 
>> Even though you can no longer shaft the Sugababes BECAUSE THEY DON'T
>> EXIST. 
>
> Bloody figments.

OK fresh, but avoid the syrup.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Like death in a top hat

Fevric J. Glandules set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:

> Prai Jei wrote:
> 
>> But at no time did the machines ever run together. OK so perhaps 90% of
>> the functionality got replaced in one go. But that's not a complete
>> replacement - and that's the point.
> 
> Feh.  You had a brand new box with brand new gubbins and an old hard
> disk.

Which (of course) has since been replaced.
-- 
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Fevric J. Glandules may or may not have intoned:

> I'm sure Plato must have had a line on this.  But would Plato 
> have made a good miscreant, eh?

Jason Plato? I'm sure he'd make an excellent miscreant, if he weren't so 
boring.

-- 
Cheers!
Ade.

Fevric J. Glandules wrote:

> Answer the question, man.  Is it still the *same* axe?

If you were beheaded and the bits laid side by side, would you say "this 
is me and my head" or "this is me and my body"?

In article , 
oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk says...
> 
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> 
> > Answer the question, man.  Is it still the *same* axe?
> 
> If you were beheaded and the bits laid side by side, would you say "this 
> is me and my head" or "this is me and my body"?

If you throw an axe and it comes apart while in flight, and the head 
kills one person and the shaft kills another, where do you bury the 
survivors?

Willy Eckerslyke  writes:

> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> 
> > Answer the question, man.  Is it still the *same* axe?
> 
> If you were beheaded and the bits laid side by side, would you say
> "this is me and my head" or "this is me and my body"?

No, because once beheaded it's impossible to speak.

Matthew

-- 
 `O'-----0     `O'---.       `O'---.       `O'---.
   \___| |       \___|0-/      \___|/        \___|
    |  | /\       |  |  \       |  |\         |  |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

In message , Matthew Vernon 
 writes
>Willy Eckerslyke  writes:
>
>> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>
>> > Answer the question, man.  Is it still the *same* axe?
>>
>> If you were beheaded and the bits laid side by side, would you say
>> "this is me and my head" or "this is me and my body"?
>
>No, because once beheaded it's impossible to speak.

You could blink in Morse code though

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In article , emperor@pick.ucam.org 
says...
> 
> Willy Eckerslyke  writes:
> 
> > Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> > 
> > > Answer the question, man.  Is it still the *same* axe?
> > 
> > If you were beheaded and the bits laid side by side, would you say
> > "this is me and my head" or "this is me and my body"?
> 
> No, because once beheaded it's impossible to speak.

Do they cut above or below the vocal chords? Might be able to rig 
something up.

In message <h9o29a$g4d$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Prai Jei 
 writes

>Which (of course) has since been replaced.

Although this thread is dancing merrily off into the foothills of the 
bizarre, there is an underlying seriousness to the question of 
replacement of parts v replacement of whole.

I've been notified by that a ten year old Potterton central heating 
furnace flu in a property is 'open' (I should jolly well hope so!) and 
is therefore terribly inefficient and that my expenditure of GBP3000 on 
a 'condescending' type furnace is the only way for me to do my bit to 
save the galaxy from certain meltdown. At least they agree that the 
whole installation is okay but the flu liner has a slight bend in it 
that is within past spec but not today.

The thought of spending money to fix something that's not broken doesn't 
appeal but, it seems, that straightforward replacement of the entire 
system is not allowed. A second opinion is that replacement of component 
parts is allowed. If the furnace needs, say, a new thermocouple, a 
replacement thermocople is okay with the hell fan save tea puffingtons. 
If a new flue liner is needed, that's allowed, too. It seems that this 
pythonesque quirky thinking can be applied to installing a complete 
replacement 'open' flue furnace provided such replacement is 'piece 
meal'. There is no time separation rule, it seems. A new flu on a Monday 
and a new furnace on a Tuesday is fine.

One puffington mentioned a HIP certification. I'm still laughing. HIP 
requirement enforcement has been scrapped in the part of the world in 
question.


-- 
James Follett.

james set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

> In message <h9o29a$g4d$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Prai Jei
>  writes
> 
>>Which (of course) has since been replaced.
> 
> Although this thread is dancing merrily off into the foothills of the
> bizarre, there is an underlying seriousness to the question of
> replacement of parts v replacement of whole.
> 
> I've been notified by that a ten year old Potterton central heating
> furnace flu in a property is 'open' (I should jolly well hope so!) and
> is therefore terribly inefficient and that my expenditure of GBP3000 on
> a 'condescending' type furnace is the only way for me to do my bit to
> save the galaxy from certain meltdown. At least they agree that the
> whole installation is okay but the flu liner has a slight bend in it
> that is within past spec but not today.
 
You didn't put quotes around (or a sic after) flu. Is this how it was spelt
in the blurb from Potterton? I agree that condescending looks suspicious in
the context, I have limited knowledge of central heating systems but would
definitely have expected something like that to be condensing instead.

Does this kinky flu that conforms to grandfather's rights, actually need
replacing at all, from a general working condition or safety point of view?
If you splashed out and had this condescending (and presumably straight)
flu installed, how long would it take you in reduced heating bills, to
recoup the capital investment?
-- 
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply