
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

Disclaimer: This question relates to defecation and the associated practices and is therefore compliant with the Bertmonkeysex Universal Mandate Supporting Egregious eXcursus (BUMSEX)
Gentlemen (or, indeed, ladies): when heading to the conveniences at work for a tom tit, frequently one is given a choice of several cubicles. Nearest to my own office, for example, the gents' offer a choice of three.
So, this morning, when entering the first choice of cubicle, I found that the previous occupant had left it in a rather unpleasant state - i.e., a Chariot of Fear - I backed out and chose the next one along.
However, as I backed out, I looked over my shoulder to check if anybody had seen what I was doing. Fortunately nobody else was around, but it
Your thoughts, please.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:03, 13 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

If you'd been caught coming out of there they'd have assumed you were responsible!
Our urinals are blocked at the moment and there's a hideous smell in/outside the toilet, I've been trekking down to Stores to use their bogs.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:05, Reply)

until SC has learned what "begging the question" means.
/pedant.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:06, Reply)

But I take Sam-I-Am's point - someone else has soiled that throne; why should I be expected to use it? All it proves is that I'm not a coprophile.
Edit: Enzyme - have I misused that? This would suggest I've been misusing said phrase for several years. That's even more embarrassing than backing out of a soiled cubicle.
Edit 2: Yes, I have misused it. To quite a preposterous extent, in fact. Consider it corrected.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:07, Reply)

www.b3ta.com/questions/peeves/post155924.
The relevant bit is this:
"Begging the question" (petitio principii) does NOT mean "raising the question". Rather, to beg the question is to commit the fallacy of presupposing in the premises of an argument that which is to be shown in the conclusion.
Allow me to demonstrate. "I think, therefore I am," says Descartes. The argument here would look like this:
P1: I am thinking
P2: Thinking things exist
C: Therefore I exist.
The problem here is that, if the existence of "I" is the conclusion of the argument, it really oughtn't to be in the major premise. The argument is, therefore, invalid; and the reason it is invalid is that it begs the question. "Begging the question", in other words, doesn't really have a great deal to do with asking anything.
(For the nonce, what Descartes should have said is:
P1: There is thinking going on
P2: Thinking things exist
C: Therefore I exist...
... except that he shouldn't. This argument is invalid because now the problem is that the "I" has come from nowhere. The point is that "I think, therefore I am" is a crock whichever way you look at it.)
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:11, Reply)

You need to take the full stop off the end of that link ;)
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:12, Reply)

and that satisfied your craving for another 30 minutes.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:13, Reply)

it's still there to me, I still get the 404!
www.b3ta.com/questions/peeves/post155924
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:14, Reply)

That's odd. It's what happens to me as well, and all I did was copy and paste the URL.
Meh, I believe, is the operative word.
*goes off to fix*
EDIT: Done!
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:15, Reply)

However powerful the odour, it can never give me the same hit as a night in a room with you and your magmatic undercrackers.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:18, Reply)

to the whole company asking for the cuplrit who has made a mess to clear it up.
We have someone or someones unknown who seem to take delight in depositing nose scrapings on a wall in the urinals.
( , Thu 8 Jan 2009, 12:22, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »