Re: Marge -- new cartoon

Veronica Karlsson wrote in message <36C...@on.spammer>...

>1. It's not about the English language. It's about logic.



    Gee, where is the logic in insisting that double-negatives
    are logical in a language where they demonstrably aren't?


>2. Email sent to me as a response to somewhat heated debate in
>   newsgropus go straight to the rubbish heap.


Since you seem to know that it's contents were in response to a heated
debate about a language which I somehow doubt you truly understand, then I
must logically assume that you did read it -- particularly in view of
the fact that I also send you other email, which is not in response to
any heated debates. Since you have obviously disregarded it, and/or the
English lesson I also posted, I must assume that your insistence that
your illogical argument is logical must be based on some kind of logic
unique to Sweden.  I hereby dub this new-found, reverse-type logic
as "Swedish Logic", and the proponents thereof as members of the
terro-sub-species "Homo Sapiens Logicus Swedus".

ON THE OTHER HAND.... it is also a prime example of another kind of logic,
which I have also seen employed many times, and which bears a remarkable
and exact resemblance to "Swedish Logic".  Both appear to disregard facts,
mathematical equations, syntax, and even the ravings of mad witch doctors.
That type of logic, of course, would be "Female Logic". The propitious
proponents who propound this type of logic make up a large proportion
of the human species.  They are characterized by their decisive but dubious
deductions, declarative discourse without deliberation, and by their dearth
of daft demands.  They may be recognized easily, for when pressed for
an explanation of their suppositions, they readily resort to the ridiculous
reply:  because.

>I could just as easily have made my examples in Swedish, but I doubt you
>would have understood what I meant if I had.


I'm glad you didn't, as I certainly would NOT have understood them. Since you
also seem to insist that double-negatives are correct and proper in the English
language, I logically infer that although it may be correct in your native
language (assuming that you do understand it correctly), your understanding
of the usage of such phrases is not complete in the English language. So, perhaps
this will help-----

            A negative  ----  meaning no

           A double-negative ---- meaning no twice on the same verb

For instance:

             No, please don't go. <------ correct

         No, no please don't go   <------ rhythmically interesting, but
                                          technically incorrect

Or:

          I could care less      <------- correct (and also most commonly used)

         I could not care less  <------- incorrect

Why? because "I" could care...... How much?  Less. None. Not at all. Zip.

If "I" could not (or the contraction couldn't) care less...... then how much
couldn't "I" care?  I could not care not again?  No.....

Look at it this way:

                 not ------- negative
                less ------- negative

      I could care negative.
              vs.
      I could negative care negative. <-------- oopps

Or    I could care -.
          vs.
      I could - care -.    <--------- oopps again

    If this still doesn't help, you may argue that the double-negative is
kerrect, by using either "Swedish" and/or "Female" logic and apply the age
old reason "because".


>>     Man!


<edited because it looks like intended didn't understand it completely enough
to respond properly>