Subject: | Re: [OM] One of the best, IMHO |
---|---|
From: | Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:57:09 -0600 |
Meaning this it is unthinkable that I would hate it when we agree. I thought it was rather clever... On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/26/2013 6:04 PM, Ken Norton wrote: >>> Don't you just hate it when we agree? <g> >> Anoetic. > > Hmmm. I see the dictionary allows such a simple use of the word. But it > literally means without thought, and refers in > psychology to non-cognitive states of mind. > > I can see where it could be read as 'without thought' = 'unthinkable', i.e. > not capable of being thought of? But it > seems to me a sloppy usage. > > Pedantic Moose > > -- > What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about? > -- > _________________________________________________________________ > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ > -- Ken Norton ken@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.zone-10.com -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] OM 100/2.8 question, Sawyer, Edward |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Out of Control, Ken Norton |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] One of the best, IMHO, Moose |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] One of the best, IMHO, Chris Barker |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |