Does this make sense?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Apr 2009 01:19

Ok can you understand the following, and if so please explain;

At university 80% is a high distinction. 90% is also a high distinction. Therefore generally all movie sequels are not as good as the original.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » 10 Apr 2009 16:04

'I am not prepared to take a side.'

I believe the statements to be mostly true though...

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 10 Apr 2009 21:31

Of course it makes sense man. I'm a footbagger therefore the sky is blue. Obviously.

Ners · Post by **Ners** » 11 Apr 2009 09:33

It makes sense, as in it's gramatically correct.

Pozdrawiam
Szymon KaÅ‚wak (Ners)

quadgun · Post by **quadgun** » 11 Apr 2009 10:53

Jeremy wrote:Ok can you understand the following, and if so please explain;

At university 80% is a high distinction. 90% is also a high distinction. Therefore generally all movie sequels are not as good as the original.

I selected no, because the middle part seems like a sentence fragment to me. But I was always bad at communications and grammar, so I'm probably wrong.

mc · Post by mc » 11 Apr 2009 12:20

I voted no, but I should have answered yes.

I mistakenly answered no to an unasked question, "does this statement make sense".

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 11 Apr 2009 16:10

Whats with all the talk about the grammar? I'm fairly sure Jeremy is talking about the logical validity of the argument.

Matt Cross wrote:I voted no, but I should have answered yes.

I mistakenly answered no to an unasked question, "does this statement make sense".

The poll question is "Does the statement in the initial post make sense?". So I don't really know where your mistake is.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Apr 2009 20:04

Yeah I was talking about the logic, not whether it was grammatically correct or not. In any event it is exceptionally easy to write grammatically correct sentences that are complete nonsense - read your Pinker or Chomsky.

Anyway I apologise for this topic. It was made in a rather drunk state, and should probably just be ignored/deleted.

It was just amusing at the time because the person who made that statement said that "sequels are always shit." This followed some discussion and the other people in the room suggesting a number of sequels that we did not perceive is shit. He responded to these "exceptions" with the statement previously mentioned, and then called us all retarded for not being able to understand what he was talking about at all.

It was probably more amusing if you were drunk and there. Anyway then I found $10 just lying on the ground. It was sweet.

edit; He also amusingly clarified his statement as; "generally all sequels are shit," and then wouldn't concede that his use of the word "all" was inappropriate. gg

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 14 Apr 2009 21:41

Lol just tell him to watch manon des sources. That'll shut 'im up.

mc · Post by mc » 15 Apr 2009 06:42

Blue_turnip wrote:Whats with all the talk about the grammar? I'm fairly sure Jeremy is talking about the logical validity of the argument.

Matt Cross wrote:I voted no, but I should have answered yes.

I mistakenly answered no to an unasked question, "does this statement make sense".
The poll question is "Does the statement in the initial post make sense?". So I don't really know where your mistake is.

Well, the poll asks does this make sense.

Jeremy then asks in his first post, can you understand?

so, that's where my confusion is.

modified

Does this make sense?

Does the statement in the initial post make sense?

Does this make sense?

Re: Does this make sense?