not logged in
| re: Muskrat Love | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 10:12 am UTC 04/12/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Muskrat Love - Pudding 06:11 am UTC 04/12/07 |
> > I can't get the imagery of this analogy out of my mind, > > and it keeps making me laugh. A hampster, and a gerbil. > > Okay, one is a hamster, and apparently a hamster is what > > one wants to be? Aw c'mon! And the other is a gerbil, and > > a gerbil is lesser class or of lesser something than a > > hampster, and that's when I really implode.....duh! I > > haven't even begun to think of what the differences > > between a hampster and a gerbil are. So okay, forgetting > > that you really don't mean hampster and gerbil of course, > > it is clear you are comparing one kind of orientation with > > another, or another kind of .....breeding.....with > > another.....and you didn't say that one is a goldfish and > > the other is a carp. But hampsters and gerbils are very > > funny you know. What makes one a hampster, and what makes > > one a gerbil, as opposed to, if I dare ask, a goldfish and > > a carp? > > The gerbil isn't meant to be seen as lesser than the > hamster (no p in hamster) Of course you are right about that spelling...funny how I got confused, but I had help: See this link LOL! but different and anyone in > their right mind who know their rodents know, you don't > mix hamsters and gerbils together. And that doesn't mean I > think the people of mlukfc are rodents either, it's an > analogy. I could have used rabbits, a hutch and a dog in > my analogy and say that they don't mix, but I didn't, I > used hamsters and a gerbil. When I was growing up, I would never have learned that. In my area, people considered hamsters and gerbils interchangeable enough to actually try to put them together. Of course, I never heard about the outcomes. The only thing I think I learned of the two was that hamsters were larger than gerbils. I of course know you were making an analogy and I appreciated that straight off, but because the differences were so subtle, I was not sure of what you meant by it. Now it is more clear. > > Pud > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Muskrat Love - Pudding 06:11 am UTC 04/12/07 |
| Next: | re: Muskrat Love - daveake 02:03 pm UTC 04/12/07 |
| Thread: |
|