new and improved

[Lonewulf]

This is the dumbest thing to waste time on that I've ever seen. I got more entertaining things to do, like getting a root canal.

[Bill_Thompson]

This is the dumbest thing to waste time on that I've ever seen. I got more entertaining things to do, like getting a root canal.

I think this is your best post I have seen from you.

==========

Lance, if you think owning toilet paper is the same thing as performing the act it is intended for, maybe it is good some of us missed the family reunion.

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE: TAKE IT EASY IT IS A JOKE

[umop ap!sdn]

Windows NT ... was a true multitasking OS and did not run at all like windows 95 or DOS. It was not improved.

Actually, NT was a heck of an improvement over 9x. :P

[Lonewulf]

I think this is your best post I have seen from you.

Intriguing. You seem to assume that I care what you think.

[Bill_Thompson]

Windows NT ... was a true multitasking OS and did not run at all like windows 95 or DOS. It was not improved.

Actually, NT was a heck of an improvement over 9x. :P

As true as that statement is, the fact remains that NT was not just windows 98 part 2. Windows NT was not windows 9x improved. It was something rebuilt from the ground up. It was something new.

"Improvement" does not equal "improved".

something can be both new and improvememt but if something is improved it means it is not new.

An new improvement is not the same thing as something altered by being improved.

[Bill_Thompson]

I think this is your best post I have seen from you.

Intriguing. You seem to assume that I care what you think.

no I don't.

and you have serious anger issues.

[Lonewulf]

What anger? I'm not angry.

I'm just amused.

[Bill_Thompson]

Intriguing. You seem to assume that we care if you are amused.

[Lonewulf]

Intriguing. You seem to assume that we care if you are amused.

Y'know, that's an interesting use of "we". If you knew how people really do perceive you on this forum, I don't think you'd use that type of pronoun.

EDIT: This is starting to turn into another flame war. Maybe it should be split off. (I mean, it's not like the argument really matters, but still, there's principle...)

[Lance]

Okay Bill, I'll take the conversation more seriously now. I've really just been "playing along" because I found your silliness amusing. But now that it is clear you really don't get it, I will stop playing games.

Misuse of the word "execute" has always annoyed me.

Headlines like "Joe Blow was executed in Texas last night for the 1992 slaying of a convenience store clerk during a robbery attempt." always bugged me because of the misuse of the word "execute". To execute something is to "do" it. You execute a warrant, or a task. You don't "do" a person, you "execute" the sentence.

It was the sentence that was executed, not the person.

Or maybe not...

execute
3 : to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence

So there is a definition of the word that makes it okay to use in the context I originally disagreed with. You learn something new every day.

And as I posted in this thread previously, but you apparently ignored or dismissed, the same is true of the word "new" as well:

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>

You simply need to broaden your understand of the word.

[Lance]

EDIT: This is starting to turn into another flame war. Maybe it should be split off. (I mean, it's not like the argument really matters, but still, there's principle...)

Let's see where it goes. I think my post right after yours should settle the argument once and for all. Unless Bill wants to argue with the dictionary...

[Lonewulf]

It's Lance! It's a Llama! No, it's... SUPER LOGICAL MAN!

[Bill_Thompson]

But which are you talking about, the act or the item?

I made this clear above and you ignored it. In your example an item was new. The act was improved. They are two different things.

[Lance]

But which are you talking about, the act or the item?

I made this clear above and you ignored it. In your example an item was new. The act was improved. They are two different things.

As I said:

But now that it is clear you really don't get it, I will stop playing games.

So take that post on its own.

I am trying to help you understand the meaning of the word "new", not justify my previous "tongue-in-cheek" example.

[Bill_Thompson]

But which are you talking about, the act or the item?

I made this clear above and you ignored it. In your example an item was new. The act was improved. They are two different things.

As I said:

But now that it is clear you really don't get it, I will stop playing games.

So take that post on its own.

I am trying to help you understand the meaning of the word "new", not justify my previous "tongue-in-cheek" example.

That does not answer my question. You are employing fuzzy logic in associating the idea that something can be new and yet since it performs an improved task it is then both new and improved.

That is fuzzy logic and it is not clear logic.

You avoid my question by resulting to Ad hominim attacks and assume that I "just don't see it". But I do see it, Lance, as I have just explained.

Answer my quesiton without throwing insults. Which are you talking about, the act or the item? By applying different terms to both you are not being logical and either need a good course in logic or a good nights sleep.

I made this clear above and you ignored it. In your example an item was new. The act was improved. They are two different things.

And another thing. I know how you see this. I know how other examples of fuzzy logic work, like, for instance the Y2K vs New millinium beginning worked. Since I see how you see it I can see how you are wrong.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Logic and semantics have nothing to do with each other.

[Lonewulf]

I'd comment, but there's nothing I can say, really. Bill really does parody himself sometimes.

[Lance]

Which are you talking about, the act or the item?

I am talking about neither.

I am talking about how an item can be both "new" and "improved" at the same time, which is what you originally asked.

I gave you dictionary definition (above) that explains the meaning of the word "new" includes the usage that you have claimed to not understand.

Any further argument you have is with the dictionary, not with me.

[Bill_Thompson]

Logic and semantics have nothing to do with each other.

Interesting idea.

Since Lance pulled out a dictionary, he should also consider pull out a grammar book.

A verb used as the subject of a sentance is called a gerand.

Like the sentance:

"Running through the escape tunnel is a feat rare survived by humans"

has what appears to be an action word that is a subject and thus a noun. This is a special case where a word normally thought to be a verb is actually a subject and thus a noun.

In Lance's example he confuses the actual tangable item, the toilet paper, with something else.

The toilet paper sitting on a shelf without any action or other object attached to itself is one example of a situation. In this situation and Lance's example this is not an improved thing. It is new but it is not improved.

In some cultures, the purpose of this item might be unknown. In a tribe in the Amazon rain forest, a missionary could present a roll of toilet paper and the entire tribe, not knowing what it is used for, will consider this a new thing without knowing that the function it is intended to do is an improvement.

It is new.

Now, its use in our culture is an entirely different thing.

In my grammar lesson abouve, I mentioned the definition of a gerand.

In this sentance:

"Wiping with toilet paper is an improvement over a corn husk"

the subject is a gerand, the word, "wiping"

it is not the toilet paper that is the subject of the sentance.

Which is it, Lance, is it the wiping or is it the toilet paper? It cannot be both. If in your mind these two palendrones have blended together than that is a different issue to be addressed. And it does not prove me wrong as you have said.

I was wanting to avoid all this but since Lance announced that this example disproved my statement, I was forced to go into this.

[Lonewulf]

I was wanting to avoid all this but since Lance announced that this example disproved my statement, I was forced to go into this.

How is Lance "magically" forcing you to post?

[Lance]

I already told you I used the toilet paper example for it's humor value. It was a joke. I told you to forget about it in the post where I said I would begin to take the discussion seriously.

Why are you trying to change the subject to something that is not important? Are you trying to avoid having to admit you were wrong?

This is, after all, one of your normal tactics. Your other tactics include abandoning the topic entirely without ever admitting your mistakes and resorting to personal attacks. I wonder which you will do next?



Edited to add:

I also find it odd that you were willing to go all the way back to Page 1 to quote something I said well before I gave a serious answer, but also often claim to not have the time to go back in threads to answer questions previously asked of you. I guess you only go back in a thread's previous posts when it suits you, and use not being able to as an excuse when it would hurt you.

[Bill_Thompson]

Which are you talking about, the act or the item?

I am talking about neither.

I am talking about how an item can be both "new" and "improved" at the same time, which is what you originally asked.

I gave you dictionary definition (above) that explains the meaning of the word "new" includes the usage that you have claimed to not understand.

Any further argument you have is with the dictionary, not with me.

The toilet paper in your example is new but as any member of the Goitacazas tribe will tell you, it , itself alone, is not improved.

[Bill_Thompson]

I already told you I used the toilet paper example for it's humor value. It was a joke. I told you to forget about it in the post where I said I would begin to take the discussion seriously.

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.

[Lance]

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.>

[Мастер]

You folks are still failing to appreciate the irony. I'll bet you didn't like Seinfeld either.

You have given me an idea for a new thread, though...