« Google's Perspicacity | Make It So Â»

The Wonders of Being Single

J
Lousy Xtra Vision.
R
What's up?
J
The card is sticking out from the plastic. They can't even use a simple laminator.
R
I always wanted to use their laminator to laminate my list.
J
What list?
R
Five celebrities I'm allowed to sleep with. Though I guess I'm allowed sleep with any of them if I'm single. It's one of the benefits of being single.
J
Not benefit in the sense of actually being of any use.
R
No, just a sort of moral thing, like a company car when you can't drive.
J
...
R
I guess I just implied more than I meant to.
Comments:
Mon, 08th Dec 2003 (12:25)

It really was that funny. And the more i read it the funnier it gets!. Boy did you land yourself in it. As you said, if we had been online talking it could have been avoided. Yet another proof that it's sucking all the humour out of real interaction…

by Djinn
Wed, 10th Dec 2003 (17:28)

Not necvessarily: it all comes down to what you mean by 'Can't': Can a disabled person at the bottom of a flight of stairs use the lavatory at the top? they 'can' in the sense that there's no-one stopping them, but, obviously, they can't. If you are to take 'can' to mean 'there is no physical barrier to prevent me from doing so' then your statement is quite accurate.

I have deliberately used a ludicrous example to illustrate the nonsensical reasoning in place here, but if this is not the reasoning that is commonly used, why is it acceptable for Dublin Bus (For example) to serve certain routes (mine included) exclusively with non wheelchair accessable buses? Exactly.

by Stephen
Thu, 11th Dec 2003 (01:21)

Damnit! This isn't about accessibility, it's about impotence. No wait. Forget that. It's about accessibility. Yeah. That'll do.

by Rory
Thu, 11th Dec 2003 (01:30)

Your analogy is flawed. If the car represents women, then it's clear what an inability to drive equates to. Your comparison with getting up the stairs would be akin to the car, or women, being too far away or some such.

But the car, in my analogy, is already mine. It's implicitly seen to be within my reach. I just can't - by my mistaken implication - operate it. The handicapped person is at the top of the stairs, so to speak.

Of course in reality I could be compared to the handicapped person who - by not having a significant other - is at the bottom of the staircase. But it can be assumed (and I assure you) that if I was at the top I would be quite capable of using the sanitary facilities provided.

by Rory
Fri, 12th Dec 2003 (15:38)

The analogy is not flawed: I don't deny that you are capable of making use of the facilities, but you seem to have difficulty in getting to the facilities…

by Stephen
Fri, 12th Dec 2003 (15:39)

The confusion seems to arise from the fact that I was responding to your problem as you intended to assert it, rather than your mistaken implication.

by sttephen
Fri, 12th Dec 2003 (15:53)

I assumed that when you said "not necessarily" in your first comment that you meant I didn't necessarily imply more than I meant to. But there is no reasonable interpretation of the original (car) analogy that doesn't imply more than I meant to.

Your analogy attempts to apply to reality, it has no relation to my analogy which I've made a great effort to state does *not* appply to reality. You say "your statement is quite accurate", but it can only be so if you don't interpret my having a company car as being direct evidence that I have unhindered access to it. Which is ludicrous. The possession of the company car, which is implicit - yet undeniable - in my original analogy, is equivalent to being at the top of the stairs and to having a girlfriend. Not being able to drive can then only mean an inability to use the facilities, ie. an inability to have sex. It cannot mean an inability to get a girlfriend. That is, my car analogy can imply only that which I didn't want to imply. My statement cannot be correct and your analogy is incongruent with mine. That is, it's flawed.

Besides all of this, your analogy sets me at the bottom of the stairs with a disability that prevents me from getting to the bathroom. If you really wanted to mirror reality you would be more accurate in saying that I haven't yet found a toilet that I want to shit in.

by Rory
Fri, 12th Dec 2003 (16:43)

Rotfl! Dude, did you just compare what I think you just compared?

Point taken re: the inaccuracy of my analogy…

by Stephen

About this post

This piece was posted on Mon, 08th Dec 2003 at 00:39.

You can find other posts at the front page or, if you're feeling lucky, check out a random post.