Euphemisms-things Have Gotten So Bad....

[lynx]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+22 March 2004 - 11:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 22 March 2004 - 11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@21 March 2004 - 15:27
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

@2 March 2004 - 11:15
in turn enforced by the increasingly omnipresent mass media.

How, in the name of fuck, can something be increasingly omnipresent.

Is this your entry in the most blatant oxymoron challenge 2004.

in the name of fuck, why would someone bother to challenge that phrase, as if true omnipresence is humanly possible. just about any use of the word is going to be a mere figure of speech that allows for degrees of so-called omnipresence. you&#39;re nitpicking something that isn&#39;t even worthy of debate. [/b][/quote]
Can&#39;t help thinking that your analysis of the use of the word "omnipresence" must be almost unique.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by lynx@22 March 2004 - 06:33
Can&#39;t help thinking that your analysis of the use of the word "omnipresence" must be almost unique.

ahem.

if by "almost unique" you mean "common," then i agree. j&#39;pol said it&#39;s an oxymoron, and i say it isn&#39;t. i believe you can add to something&#39;s omnipresent quality by increasing its efficiency, effectiveness, intensity, uniformity, etc. and by discovering more space for it to occupy. it&#39;s neither a self-contradictory phrase, nor a stupid one.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+22 March 2004 - 00:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 22 March 2004 - 00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@22 March 2004 - 01:03


I recall many years ago taking a summer job whilst at University in a busy Edinburgh hotel.

You went to University in a busy Edinburgh hotel

If I were you I would not have taken a summer job. I would have stayed at the hotel whilst it was quiet, with all of the other students away. [/b][/quote]
I really must refrain making these late night, post glass of apple, posts.

Having re-read my post I am no longer sure whether I attended Edinburgh University or simply worked with students in a busy hotel in Edinburgh or, perhaps, both (although possibily not at the same time). It is all rather a blur and I was very, very drunk at the time.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 March 2004 - 10:01
i believe you can add to something&#39;s omnipresent quality by increasing its efficiency, effectiveness, intensity, uniformity, etc. and by discovering more space for it to occupy.&nbsp; it&#39;s neither a self-contradictory phrase, nor a stupid one.

Not to nit-pick (You know I would never do that), but, given that the primary definition of the word omnipresent, as set forth by the Oxford, is "present everywhere at the same time"; the only variable might be as relates to stated venue (In the U.S.? In the World? In the Universe?), which would have the effect of proscribing meaning.

As your post stands, then, 3RA1N1AC, you must sit still for J&#39;Pol&#39;s assessment, or retract your use of the word, as omnipresence, by definition, resists modification in all instances except the aforementioned variable of venue.

Unless, of course, you are invoking the trump card upon which are emblazoned the words "Politically Correct".

Then, I suppose, you would have a case.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by lynx+22 March 2004 - 15:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 22 March 2004 - 15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 March 2004 - 11:59

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@21 March 2004 - 15:27
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

@2 March 2004 - 11:15
in turn enforced by the increasingly omnipresent mass media.

How, in the name of fuck, can something be increasingly omnipresent.

Is this your entry in the most blatant oxymoron challenge 2004.

in the name of fuck, why would someone bother to challenge that phrase, as if true omnipresence is humanly possible. just about any use of the word is going to be a mere figure of speech that allows for degrees of so-called omnipresence. you&#39;re nitpicking something that isn&#39;t even worthy of debate.

Can&#39;t help thinking that your analysis of the use of the word "omnipresence" must be almost unique. [/b][/quote]
Wouldn&#39;t "almost unique" be qualifying a superlative.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+22 March 2004 - 13:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 22 March 2004 - 13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@21 March 2004 - 15:27
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

@2 March 2004 - 11:15
in turn enforced by the increasingly omnipresent mass media.

How, in the name of fuck, can something be increasingly omnipresent.

Is this your entry in the most blatant oxymoron challenge 2004.

in the name of fuck, why would someone bother to challenge that phrase, as if true omnipresence is humanly possible. just about any use of the word is going to be a mere figure of speech that allows for degrees of so-called omnipresence. you&#39;re nitpicking something that isn&#39;t even worthy of debate. [/b][/quote]
That must be one of the most feeble defences of a mistake that I have ever read, do you believe that nonsense.

Whether omnipresence is possible is neither here nor there. The meaning of the word does not change depending on whether it is possible or not.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles+22 March 2004 - 17:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 22 March 2004 - 17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@22 March 2004 - 00:52
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles

@22 March 2004 - 01:03


I recall many years ago taking a summer job whilst at University in a busy Edinburgh hotel.

You went to University in a busy Edinburgh hotel

If I were you I would not have taken a summer job. I would have stayed at the hotel whilst it was quiet, with all of the other students away.

I really must refrain making these late night, post glass of apple, posts.

Having re-read my post I am no longer sure whether I attended Edinburgh University or simply worked with students in a busy hotel in Edinburgh or, perhaps, both (although possibily not at the same time). It is all rather a blur and I was very, very drunk at the time. [/b][/quote]


Your post-apple posts are superior to most people&#39;s sober ones. In clarity of thought, style and content. As indeed is your response to a friendly poke.

Cheers.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@22 March 2004 - 20:54



Your post-apple posts are superior to most people&#39;s sober ones. In clarity of thought, style and content. As indeed is your response to a friendly poke.

Cheers.

To you too sir,

A friendly poke is the pleasant road to humility and hence wisdom - it is appreciated.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+22 March 2004 - 12:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 22 March 2004 - 12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That must be one of the most feeble defences of a mistake that I have ever read, do you believe that nonsense.

Whether omnipresence is possible is neither here nor there. The meaning of the word does not change depending on whether it is possible or not.[/b]

here&#39;s an oxymoron for you: passive aggressive. here&#39;s another one: internet community. the world news forum is typically full of it. ahem. full of them.

have you ever heard the phrase "increased presence"? or the suggestion that a person is barely here, or not all there? if you need to go straight into "how in the name of fuck" and "one of the most feeble" in response to the suggestion that there are varying degrees of quality to presence, well... how about, fuck off? i don&#39;t need the approval of a foul-mouthed belligerent guy on the internet, just to use an expression that doesn&#39;t fit neatly with the dictionary definition.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
the only variable might be as relates to stated venue (In the U.S.? In the World? In the Universe?), which would have the effect of proscribing meaning.

As your post stands, then, 3RA1N1AC, you must sit still for J&#39;Pol&#39;s assessment, or retract your use of the word, as omnipresence, by definition, resists modification in all instances except the aforementioned variable of venue.[/quote]

did i not write "by discovering more space for it to occupy"? at one point, mass media exclusively occupied a certain visual space allowed by the printed word & pictures. then the venue increased to include the ears. what then, if mass media takes advantage of other senses, if it&#39;s delivered more efficiently through things like images and sounds projected directly into the eyes and ears, or if electronic elements are someday grafted to the body for the specific purpose of receiving more media and heightening the sensation? does the venue not technically expand when more senses are addressed, more discreetly and intensely?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 March 2004 - 22:49
did i not write "by discovering more space for it to occupy"?&nbsp; at one point, mass media exclusively occupied a certain visual space allowed by the printed word & pictures.&nbsp; then the venue increased to include the ears.&nbsp; what then, if mass media takes advantage of other senses, if it&#39;s delivered more efficiently through things like images and sounds projected directly into the eyes and ears, or if electronic elements are someday grafted to the body for the specific purpose of receiving more media and heightening the sensation?&nbsp; does the venue not technically expand when more senses are addressed, more discreetly and intensely?

I&#39;ll grant your mention, 3RA1N1AC.

My point was that the word omnipresent represents an optimum which is not subject to any further "idealization".

Look at it in terms of "everywhere" vs. "even more places than everywhere".

Clunky, isn&#39;t it?