The Photoshop Family

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:20:29 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 3/8/2014 4:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

C'mon...tell me seriously that "buy a haircut" is an idiomatic
expression in English.


There is an obvious distinction between "buy a haircut," and buy a cut
hare.

They are two different things. A hare is an animal and a hair grows on an
animal.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Buy a haircut? That's not a usage I've ever seen before...or
want to see again.

Sandman:
Your ignorance is of no importance.

C'mon...tell me seriously that "buy a haircut" is an idiomatic
expression in English.

I suspect that your use of that expression has something to do with
the translation of some word in Swedish to the English "buy", but I
assure you that the expression is not an expression in English.

If Google Translate works correctly, what we would say would be få
håret klippt in Swedish.

I am not talking about an expression, Tony. I am talking about you
purchasing a service. You got your hair cut and your car waxed, but you
purchased a haircut and waxing of your car. When your wife goes through
your reciept and asked "What did you buy for $29 last wednesday" you're not
going to reply "NOTHING!!!! I GOT AN HAIRCUT!!!!! I CAN'T BUY AN HAIRCUT
YOU STUPID WOMAN! I GOT IT! SEEMINGLY FOR FREE"

You got an haircut, which you bought, for money. You purchased the service.
It's not a matter of what you actually call it - it's still a transaction
where you bought something. The expression "I got an haircut" actually
implies the exact opposite of a monetary transaction, so we really can't
use expressions to deem the aptness of words related to transactions of
money.

This was yet another case of Tony trying his hardest to nitpick on the
smaller details while trying his hardest to ignore the actual topic under
discussion.


--
Sandman[.net]

"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:20:29 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 3/8/2014 4:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

C'mon...tell me seriously that "buy a haircut" is an idiomatic
expression in English.


There is an obvious distinction between "buy a haircut," and buy a
cut
hare.

They are two different things. A hare is an animal and a hair grows on
an
animal.





There is a "The Haircut Store"* in a mall near here. I would expect to
be able to buy one, if I went there with enough money in my pocket. I'd
likely be able to get the money from the neighboring "The Money Store".

* I lied: all the "The Haircut Store" establishments with local listings
have changed their names or been closed. Sorry.

--
Frank ess

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:06:04 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

And you have provided an example of you trying to weasel out of
something instead of simply processing the information that you erred
and filing it away so you won't do it again. All this above from you
instead of the simple solution that an adult would adopt.

Jonas is trying to maintain the appearance of having skills in English
by denying the need to repair them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/9/2014 7:03 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:20:29 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 3/8/2014 4:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

C'mon...tell me seriously that "buy a haircut" is an idiomatic
expression in English.


There is an obvious distinction between "buy a haircut," and buy a cut
hare.

They are two different things. A hare is an animal and a hair grows on an
animal.


I wish some hair more hair would grow on the top of my head.


--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
I am not talking about an expression, Tony.

I understand that.

I very much doubt that.

Sandman:
which you bought, for money. You purchased the service. It's not a
matter of what you actually call it

That's your problem.

Incorrect.

You make mistakes in what we actually call
things,

I could only make such a mistake if my goal was to state what "you"
actually call things. As this discussion hasn't been about what "you" call
things, I could have made no such mistake.

In fact, you are quite clearly supporting *MY* side of the discussion by
this late turn - since people actually *DO* call it "buy" when purchasing a
Photoshop license. The expression is "I bought Photoshop", which is the
part that Drunk Dave had such severe problems with.

Sandman:
- it's still a transaction where you bought something. The
expression "I got an haircut" actually implies

You still don't understand what "implies" means.

Incorrect.

"Got" does not in any way imply "free".

I didn't say free - I said the "exact opposite", which I agree may be
overstating it a bit. The word "got" does not imply "buy" or "purchase".

"I got a new book last week" does not indicate in any way whether I paid
for the book or obtained it for free.

Point is, it doesn't imply you bought it.

Sandman:
the exact opposite of a monetary transaction, so we really can't
use expressions to deem the aptness of words related to
transactions of money.

This was yet another case of Tony trying his hardest to nitpick on
the smaller details while trying his hardest to ignore the actual
topic under discussion.

And you have provided an example of you trying to weasel out of
something instead of simply processing the information that you
erred and filing it away so you won't do it again.

Keep telling yourself that, Tony.

All this above from you instead of the simple solution that an adult
would adopt.

My irony meter just exploded.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
When your wife goes through your reciept and asked "What did you
buy for $29 last wedn...

Whisky-dave:
The only haircut you can purchase here in east london is called a
Syrup ;-)

The going price range for a man's haircut in this area is $12 to
$15. There are places that charge more, but a $29 haircut would be
very much out-of-line.

Haircuts in Sweden are easily $40 for a normal guy. We have 25% VAT
included in price, but still.

Of course, we add a tip to the charge, so a $15 haircut is $17 or
$18 out-of-pocket.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

which you bought, for money. You purchased the
service. It's not a matter of what you actually call it

Tony Cooper:
That's your problem.

Sandman:
Incorrect.

Tony Cooper:
You make mistakes in what we actually call things,

Sandman:
I could only make such a mistake if my goal was to state what
"you" actually call things. As this discussion hasn't been about
what "you" call things, I could have made no such mistake.

In fact, you are quite clearly supporting *MY* side of the
discussion by this late turn - since people actually *DO* call it
"buy" when purchasing a Photoshop license. The expression is "I
bought Photoshop", which is the part that Drunk Dave had such
severe problems with.

So you've now been reduced to creative snippage to weasel away.

Ironic.

I wrote: "That's your problem. You make mistakes in what we
actually call things, but this isn't about what anything is called.
We call it a haircut. Your mistake was in the verb, not the noun."

So you snipped the haircut reference and turned it into a Photoshop
reference. You snipped the "this isn't about what anything is
called" and went to the verb "buy".

That's cheating, and dishonest.

This is rich, the master snipper whines about parts of a paragraph was left
out since it wasn't replied to. You made a statement that was incorrect:

"You make mistakes in what we actually call things"

Since I have made no such mistake, I responded explaining that. Me snipping
out the rest of the passage doesn't change that claim from you, or remove
context that changes its meaning.

Tony Cooper:
"Got" does not in any way imply "free".

Sandman:
I didn't say free - I said the "exact opposite", which I agree may
be overstating it a bit. The word "got" does not imply "buy" or
"purchase".

Oh. The exact opposite of "a monetary transaction" is not free?

You put quotation marks around a word that was not quoted from my post. I
just wanted to clarify that I didn't say the word you quoted.

Tony Cooper:
"I got a new book last week" does not indicate in any way
whether I paid for the book or obtained it for free.

Sandman:
Point is, it doesn't imply you bought it.

You've snipped, but the book reference countered your comment that
"I got an haircut" "actually implies the exact opposite of a
monetary transaction".

Which I've since modified, as per above, so any further comments regarding
those somewhat poorly chosen words are dismissed as reading comprehension
problems on your part.

Now you're saying it doesn't imply you bought it. This shows you
don't understand the meaning of "imply".

Again, incorrect. Just making the same claim over and over again doesn't
make you correct, Tony.

The phrase "I got" is neutral; there are no implications in the phrase.
It's just a different way of saying "I obtained".

I know.

You may infer that a haircut or a book was purchased in a monetary
transaction, but "I got..." does not imply anything.

Which is why I said the very same thing.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Haircuts in Sweden are easily $40 for a normal guy. We have 25% VAT
included in price, but still.

how much for those who aren't normal?

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Haircuts in Sweden are easily $40 for a normal guy. We have 25%
VAT included in price, but still.

how much for those who aren't normal?

Women usually pay a lot more. I run a trimmer on my head, so I don't pay
anything


--
Sandman[.net]