DanP said:
He has. When one will build an empire as he did, one will also afford whatever headlines the newspapers and tabloids will make for you, and they will just result in more exposure for you. Untill then, one can claim Hefner has no status, but the reality is a bit different.
Do yourself a favor and read a book on psychology of judiciary processes. You will understand.
Wow, I'm a little astonished by your arrogance. You're entitled to your opinions, but they are just that... and your recommendation to me is simply an insult. Why bother to post here if you refuse to answer direct questions? Clearly you're a poseur with nothing to offer, who just wanted to bluster. Unless you care to go back to our first exchange and start answering questions then I'm done with you. You're so far beyond the original point about the relative advantages of various attributes that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.
Klockan3 said:
Length refers to the longest dimension and on humans that would be "height". So technically it is more correct since it is a better defined word even though people in general don't use it. It is kinda like stating your mass instead of weight since technically it is mass we are talking about.
I want to say you've read this selectively, but only in the sense that you took words in one of the definitions and ignored their context. It is only the longest dimension of a "STATIONARY OBJECT"... and the example is a table. Take the hint. It's OK to be wrong, but it's truly absurd to go to these lengths to argue with etymology.
Klockan3 said:
Also in my mother tongue (not English but related)
HOLD IT
You don't think that informing me that English isn't your first language might have helped avoid this discussion ENTIRELY?! I'm not going to argue semantics in Swedish vs. English... an absurdity on its face. Please, next time don't wait for your third post on the topic to fill people in on that when its relevant.
Klockan3 said:
...we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.
That's great, but once again I'm not arguing about how this is done in Swedish, and NEVER WAS. When it comes to Swedish, I'll take your word for it, and never would have commented on your grammar had I known about this in the first place. Come on man...
Klockan3 said:
As for why height is a bad word look here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
When it is on the ground its longest dimension is the one perpendicular to the ground so it is called height, once it reaches space you can't orient it like that so suddenly height becomes length... In the same way as soon as a human goes to sleep his height would plummet to a few decimeters while he would suddenly have a length while the length is not defined when he stands up... And how do you define the height of a baby, since he can't stand up is it from his palms to his shoulders?
It's absurd to assume that we should inject relative position in free-fall, when our lives are spent on Earth. When we're talking about who experiences what, when, near the event horizon of a black hole, I'll specify the frames of reference in the relevant coordinate system. When we're talking about PEOPLE in a thread titled "Tall people..." I really don't feel that I need to interject: "height, relatively speaking, using Earthbound conventions". You're Swedish, not Venusian... this shouldn't be a hard one. It's called CONTEXT (sammanhang), and it's painfully obvious here.
Klockan3 said:
And with laymen I mean people who don't use the definitions of the words but instead use the words based on their experience with them. For example mass and weight. Mass is the correct term but none uses that simply because the other is so well established. Now, even though it isn't really wrong to use the word height for measuring humans if you go by the definition neither is length.
For all of your talk, you forget that when it comes to linguistics, "correct," is relative. You're allowed a variety of ways to express yourself, and if this is just a linguistic SNAFU, that's fine. If you're making the case that in the context of this thread, "length", then "height", used to describe the same attribute in the same paragraph is a bit mad.
?
