(20:40:31) kesuari: and take a guess how easy it is to search for information on something called "by" with relation to something called "r"
Quotes
Interesting things said in my presence
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2003 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2005 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2006 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2007 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2008 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
2009 |
other categories found with "ambiguity": misparsings (6), sex (5), inappropriateness (4), sketchiness (3), sadness (2)
[ sort: date / rating, ↑ ↓ ]
[edit] added: 22 May 2008
(12:16:42) kesuari: literal definition often means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical"
(12:17:01) [me]: fair enough
(12:17:07) [me]: people certainly use it that way
(12:17:49) kesuari: that's the first definition on dictionary.com ;)
(12:18:25) [me]: yeah, I guessed you'd pulled it from a dictionary
(12:18:44) kesuari: well, i was pointing out it's the *first* definition
(12:18:52) kesuari: i.e. the primary one
(12:20:08) [me]: dictionaries don't always know which to put first
(12:20:37) kesuari: in the case of "literal" i think they got it right
(12:20:49) kesuari: people don't use it to mean its literal definition i.e. "of letters" very often
(12:21:03) kesuari: (oh noes! i've used "literal" with a different definition!)
(12:22:46) [me]: you're just trying to be meta and ironic to get on my quotes page
(12:23:01) [me]: *to get more on my quotes page
(12:23:06) [me]: you dominate it anyway these days
(12:23:27) kesuari: lol no, i was just trying to be ironic because irony is funny
(12:23:40) kesuari: if that gets me on your quotes page, well then, i can use that in my plot to take over the world
(12:23:49) kesuari: and if it doesn't, well, it's not a vital step anyway
...
(12:25:40) kesuari: actually, that could be more a difference of the implications of "primary" anyway. so maybe i was using "literal" with its literal meaning, but "literal" and "primary" are both thankfully ambiguous in the same way?
(12:25:43) kesuari: i am confused.
[edit] added: 3 July 2007
"I can just see Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin sitting down over a glass of Sam Adams."
[edit] added: 28 February 2007
"Okay, look dude: one thigh, two thigh, butt, back."
[edit] added: 9 October 2006
Derek: "Look, cheerleaders."
Jonathan: "And they're not wearing their uniforms."
...
[edit] added: 13 August 2005
Nic: "Me & Kristin hung out and watched the movie Sideways. So we got to spend time together."
Jonathan: "Mm. … Sideways?"
[edit] added: 4 July 2005
"Laura, no fucking fire."
[edit] added: 12 April 2005
(23:26:57) Ian: so what was that book that fucking chomsky would be more useful than?
[edit] added: 12 April 2005
(00:05:16) Jess: fucking chomsky would be more useful than this book
[edit] added: 3 December 2003
(21:26:44) Kathryn: i meant logically
(21:26:45) [me]: you mean how that has anything to do with the part before?
(21:26:50) Kathryn: yes
(21:27:17) [me]: that can stay ambiguous. There's some context here that makes it a little clearer. You'll see later
(21:27:30) Kathryn: o...k...
(21:28:25) [me]: I'm not on crack; I promise.
(21:28:37) Kathryn: riiight