new and improved

[Bill_Thompson]

Then give any other example.

With this persistance that you are right, surely a tangable real-life example will be easy for you to present.

Are you seriously claiming that you don't understand the definition of the word "new" as given in the dictionary?

Oh my FSM!

Okay, how about 2-ply toilet paper over 1-ply toilet paper?

When originally introduced it would have been a new product, "2 Ply Toilet Paper", but it also would have been an improvement to "1 Ply Toilet Paper".

It's NEW!

It's IMPROVED!

It's TWO!

It's TWO!

It's TWO PLY TOILET PAPER!


<Sorry, I really have a hard time taking this seriously.>

No, it is not, Lance. That doesn't work either. And notice that you are trying a different angle without admitting your first example was flawed.
You are continue to run without acknowleding you stumbled.

But here is why this example is not right either. You are still merging two different concepts into one. Either you are talking about toilet paper (which is improved by making it two ply) or you are deciding to consider the fact that two ply toilet paper is a new item.

If you consider two ply to be a new item, then you cannot call it improved.

if you consider the toilet paper to be improved than you cannot call it new.

[Lonewulf]

No, it is not, Lance. That doesn't work either. And notice that you are trying a different angle without admitting your first example was flawed.
You are continue to run without acknowleding you stumbled.

No, but he did say that his first example was a joke.

[Lance]

No, it is not, Lance. That doesn't work either. And notice that you are trying a different angle without admitting your first example was flawed.
You are continue to run without acknowleding you stumbled.

I told you my first example was a tongue-in-cheek joke. You must have the reading comprehension of a snail if you keep missing that point. Or are you just trying to change the subject away from the one that you lost?

But here is why this example is not right either. You are still merging two different concepts into one. Either you are talking about toilet paper (which is improved by making it two ply) or you are deciding to consider the fact that two ply toilet paper is a new item.

If you consider two ply to be a new item, then you cannot call it improved.

if you consider the toilet paper to be improved than you cannot call it new.

Bill;

May I remind you that it was you who, in the original post, asked a question about something you did not understand:

How can something be both new and improved at the same time?

This has been answered for you. It is because you don't fully understand the meanings of the words "new" or "improved".

Whether or not my examples stand up to scrutiny is not the topic of the debate. For that matter, I will freely admit that the examples I gave are bad and should be dismissed. Fair enough?

All examples aside, your failure to completely understand the words is the bottom line.

Now, after reading the complete definitions of the words, are you trying to say that you still do not understand it?

That is a "yes" or "no" question. It is not an invitation to continue debating examples which I have withdrawn.

[Bill_Thompson]

No, it is not, Lance. That doesn't work either. And notice that you are trying a different angle without admitting your first example was flawed.
You are continue to run without acknowleding you stumbled.

No, but he did say that his first example was a joke.

I know. But he did make a clear that this "joke" disproved my comment. And he labled it as a joke long after he made the comment that he had disproved my remark. He even pm'd me insisting that he had "disproved" me. Thus demanding that I call my attention to the argument and omit defeat or find a flaw in his statement.

And about the current example: Just because you have find something that you can think of as being either being new or being improved does not mean that you can logically think of it as being new and improved at the same time. Once you regard it as being new you can no longer logically regard it as being improved. Once you regard it as being improved you can no longer logically regard it as being new. It is important that "at the same time" was placed at the end of the sentance at the beginning of this tread.

[Lance]

I know. But he did make a clear that this "joke" disproved my comment. And he labled it as a joke long after he made the comment that he had disproved my remark. He even pm'd me insisting that he had "disproved" me. Thus demanding that I call my attention to the argument and omit defeat or find a flaw in his statement.

It did. But it was never the point.

And about the current example: Just because you have find something that you can think of as being either being new or being improved does not mean that you can logically think of it as being new and improved at the same time. Once you regard it as being new you can no longer logically regard it as being improved. Once you regard it as being improved you can no longer logically regard it as being new. It is important that "at the same time" was placed at the end of the sentance at the beginning of this tread.

Logical fallacy...

By definition, being new and improved are not mutually exclusive states.

Next.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

There was the number thing, the eye colour thing, the ETI thing,
and now the toilet-paper thing.

[Bill_Thompson]

I know. But he did make a clear that this "joke" disproved my comment. And he labled it as a joke long after he made the comment that he had disproved my remark. He even pm'd me insisting that he had "disproved" me. Thus demanding that I call my attention to the argument and omit defeat or find a flaw in his statement.

It did. But it was never the point.

And about the current example: Just because you have find something that you can think of as being either being new or being improved does not mean that you can logically think of it as being new and improved at the same time. Once you regard it as being new you can no longer logically regard it as being improved. Once you regard it as being improved you can no longer logically regard it as being new. It is important that "at the same time" was placed at the end of the sentance at the beginning of this tread.

Logical fallacy...

By definition, being new and improved are not mutually exclusive states.

Next.

They are just as being old and being new are mutually exclusive states.

If you are so sure, offer up another example. Your first two have failed.

[Lonewulf]

There was the number thing, the eye colour thing, the ETI thing,
and now the toilet-paper thing.

What do you expect from our dear old Billy? A logical argument? Hardly!

[Lance]

Repost: (For those who don't know how to look up.)

No, it is not, Lance. That doesn't work either. And notice that you are trying a different angle without admitting your first example was flawed.
You are continue to run without acknowleding you stumbled.

I told you my first example was a tongue-in-cheek joke. You must have the reading comprehension of a snail if you keep missing that point. Or are you just trying to change the subject away from the one that you lost?

But here is why this example is not right either. You are still merging two different concepts into one. Either you are talking about toilet paper (which is improved by making it two ply) or you are deciding to consider the fact that two ply toilet paper is a new item.

If you consider two ply to be a new item, then you cannot call it improved.

if you consider the toilet paper to be improved than you cannot call it new.

Bill;

May I remind you that it was you who, in the original post, asked a question about something you did not understand:

How can something be both new and improved at the same time?

This has been answered for you. It is because you don't fully understand the meanings of the words "new" or "improved".

Whether or not my examples stand up to scrutiny is not the topic of the debate. For that matter, I will freely admit that the examples I gave are bad and should be dismissed. Fair enough?

All examples aside, your failure to completely understand the words is the bottom line.

Now, after reading the complete definitions of the words, are you trying to say that you still do not understand it?

That is a "yes" or "no" question. It is not an invitation to continue debating examples which I have withdrawn.


Added:

Now either admit that you get this or confess that you still don't but quit being an asshole.

[Bill_Thompson]

There was the number thing, the eye colour thing, the ETI thing,
and now the toilet-paper thing.

What do you expect from our dear old Billy? A logical argument? Hardly!

If you are so sure, offer up another example. Your first two have failed.

[Lonewulf]

If you are so sure, offer up another example. Your first two have failed.

According to you. I don't care what you say.

Also, look at page 4, towards the end. Read what Lance said.

[Bill_Thompson]

How can something be both new and improved at the same time?

This has been answered for you. It is because you don't fully understand the meanings of the words "new" or "improved".

Whether or not my examples stand up to scrutiny is not the topic of the debate. For that matter, I will freely admit that the examples I gave are bad and should be dismissed. Fair enough?

All examples aside, your failure to completely understand the words is the bottom line.

Now, after reading the complete definitions of the words, are you trying to say that you still do not understand it?

That is a "yes" or "no" question. It is not an invitation to continue debating examples which I have withdrawn.

That does not work in the real world. If you have a real world example where something can be both new and improved, offer it.

[Lonewulf]

Once more, Billy Boy ignores/avoids the entire thing about the definition.

Figures.

[Lance]

The examples have been given and I stand by them.

The simple words have been explained to you in terms that even you could understand.

Clearly you are just being an ass.

Locking.

[Bill_Thompson]

There was a post that was locked and I thought made a sticky. I thought it was here. Was it deleted? Was the post about "new and improved" deleted?

If so, that is too bad. I thought it was cool and a fun read.

If it is gone, did anyone make a back-up.

[umop ap!sdn]

Ummm, could you be a little more specific? :?

[Bill_Thompson]

I am glad that you unblocked this, Lance.

Code: Select all

The Dictionary wrote:
new
4 a : beginning as the resumption or repetition of a previous act or thing <a new day> <the new edition>
b : made or become fresh <awoke a new person>

From what dictionary did you get that second definition? That does not apply to the common use of the term "New and Improved" since the expression "New and Improved" is a marketing term that is applied to products. The second definition above is synomomous to improved. So what you are really showing me is that someone can be both improved and improved at the same time NOT that someone can be both new and improved at the same time.

Improperly forcing the word "new" into an unintended definition is not logical and does not show that something can be both new and improved at the same time. For instance, if people in a small village in New Zealand call their country "New" for short, and if their country is improved. Tah Dah! You have your proof, in your way of thinking. You find another definition of the word "new" that is unintended. That is not logical.

Regardless of the definition of words that you can look up in a dictionary, it is not irrational for me to ask you for an example of something that is both new and improved at the same time. You insist you are right. Your examples have been shown to be wrong. So do you have any examples to make that I cannot show to be inaccurate?

The first example, you say was a joke.

The second example I clearly showed was not really an example of something being new and improved.

Now, I think you say that you stand by your two examples. Well, either way, if the first example was serious or not, I still showed how the first example did not work logically.

So what is your position now, Lance? Do you have an example or not? Do you stand my any examples you have given or not?

This is a wonderful discussion thread. I think you and Lonewulf are standing alone here. No? Anyone else take your side? Maybe you should put it to a vote.

[Lance]

If you can't understand the definitions of simple words in the dictionary, examples would be far too difficult for you to comprehend.

[Мастер]

The whole thing was a humorous observation. If people are checking dictionaries, arguing fine shades of meaning, etc., then they're missing the whole point.

[Lance]

Really...

If you want to argue definitions, go look up biweekly some time.

I just get a little frustrated when Bill Thompson tries to make such a stupid point and then go with it like it makes sense. Yeah, my fault, I know it.

[Bill_Thompson]

If two words have the same definition it does not mean that you can claim that the adjectives taken in the proper context can be used to discribe the same object.

The fact that the word "new" can mean the same thing as "improved" does not mean that something can be considered to be both new and improved at the same time.

[Lance]

Your occasional failure to grasp simple concepts sometimes amazes me.

[Cyndi]

Talk about 'beating a dead horse' !

[Bill_Thompson]

Your occasional failure to grasp simple concepts sometimes amazes me.

Each example was shown to be invalid.

Why did you give one example and then when I discredited it, you felt you had to give a second one?

Then after I discredit your second example you went to the dictionary and said "hey, look here, the two words can mean the same thing"!

Well, if they are the exact same thing then there is no difference. If they are no difference then they cannot be both at the same time because there is no distinction.

Then you reversed yourself again and said that you stand by your previous examples which I showed were invalid without explaining why my discrediting of your examples was wrong.

Failing that, you accuse me of "beating a dead horse" without explaining yourself or why I am wrong. Ad Hominin.

You even went as far as to change my avatar and my signature to avoid the discussion. The fact that you are running the show does not automatically make your invulnerable or beyond fault, President Nixon.

[Bill_Thompson]

The whole thing was a humorous observation. If people are checking dictionaries, arguing fine shades of meaning, etc., then they're missing the whole point.

And It is his missing of the point that is a nail I can drive. :D