From pehasys@nessie.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk Tue Feb 24 21:08:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: from NESSIE ([158.195.17.137]) by galileo.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk with smtp id m0y7Qet-000H9aC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:08:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:14:45 +0200 Message-Id: <98022421144579@nessie.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk> From: pehasys@nessie.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk (Petr Hudec) To: garabik@galileo.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk Subject: Re: www - about X-VMS-To: smtp%"garabik@galileo.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk" Status: RO > In your previous mail, you wrote: > > > In your previous mail, you wrote: > > > > > In your previous mail, you wrote: > > > > > > > In your previous mail, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > In your previous mail, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly does stultus omni momento nascitur mean??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no clue... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly does stultus omni momento nascitur mean??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probaby "there's a sucker born every minute". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (hint: try AltaVista search the next time ;-) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, make up your mind! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I did. I don't know. It could be the quote I wrote above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which one? "stultus omni momento nascitur"="I have no clue..." or > > > > > > > "stultus omni momento nascitur"="Probaby ""there's a sucker born every minute""" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your logic seems to be somewhat fuzzy... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just should start to learn to read. > > > > > > "I have no clue" = "I don't know"; meaning, I don't know what does "stultus > > > > > > omni momento nascitur" mean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unlike you, I can read pretty well. There is a subtle problem within your > > > > > first answer: What if "stultus omni momento nascitur" really meant > > > > > "I have no clue"? Then your answer "I have no clue" would be perfectly > > > > > valid. You should have indicated that it was not a translation, but rather a > > > > > general statement about your knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was clear. The second answer said it in quoters. So, an intelligent human > > > > would find first answer as "general statement about my knowledge" and not as > > > > translation of the mention Latin quote. > > > > > > > > > > It might have been clear, but not to me. As the latin quote is not in double > > > quotes, nobody with his/her mind intact (her? mind? ehm...) would expect > > > the translation to be in quotes. On the other hand, your answer was _not_ in > > > quotes, so naturally I (being moderatly intelligent) assumed it to be the > > > translation. > > > > > > > Yes, but the other answer _was_ in quotes... that could imply that _that_ was > > the answer... (if there was any answer) > > > > Just the opposite. As the quote in question was without quotes, the answer > should be without quotes, too. In your second answer all out of the sudden some > quotes appeared, so more natural explanation is that the second answer has > nothing to do with the original question. Of course, you are wrong. The quote was without the quoters because it was a quote. The translation was in quoters to ensure the intelligent reader to realize what part could be the explanation of the mention quote. Peter.