Nothing

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 20 Sep 2009 10:04 am

Paul Graupp wrote:How About Gene Watson's friend of whom he sang:
But when we were down to nothing
Nothing sure looked good on you.
Those would not work as plurals, would they ??...

No, because there's no reference to individual nothings, only to nothing in general.

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 23 Sep 2009 4:45 pm

Going...Going...GONE !!

Roger Crawford · Post by **Roger Crawford** » 5 Oct 2009 8:44 am

Shouldn't we start a new topic about something?

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 5 Oct 2009 8:49 am

Nothing to start a new topic about.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 5 Oct 2009 11:21 am

Roger Crawford wrote:Shouldn't we start a new topic about something?

For what purpose?
When nothing is the subject, that also makes it something.
I'm aware you already knew that, Roger.
... just wanted to make it squeaky clean clear.

BTW:
When people say, "nothing works around here".
Do they mean nothing is actually busy at work; or do they mean something is procrastinating?

Just how important is this?
Well, no one knows the "meaning of life".
This could be it, if we find the answer.

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 5 Oct 2009 1:16 pm

Roger Crawford · Post by **Roger Crawford** » 5 Oct 2009 2:14 pm

If nothing is something, then I've got plenty of it!

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 5 Oct 2009 5:42 pm

Rick Collins wrote:...When people say, "nothing works around here".
Do they mean nothing is actually busy at work; or do they mean something is procrastinating?...

It's the ambiguity of the expression "nothing" that causes the confusion. In the above example it can mean, "There is no thing that works around here" or "The absence of anything works around here" or "Everything does not work around here."
When in doubt, try translating the phrase into a different language, and you will usually find that there are multiple translations, dependant upon the point you want to make.

Roger Crawford wrote:If nothing is something, then I've got plenty of it!

While the word "nothing" is something, in that it's a word with a meaning, its meaning is the absence of anything. In that sense, everyone has an abundence of nothing, since there is no limit to the amount of nothing in any amount. It's the old mathematical expression which says that anything divided by zero is infinity... 2/0 5/0 10000/0.. they're all infinity since the logic is that you can have any number of nothings and they will all represent the same thing, which is zero.

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 7 Oct 2009 2:35 am

OK !! Let's try this one more time...

Going...Going...GONE!!

Roger Crawford · Post by **Roger Crawford** » 7 Oct 2009 4:07 am

I was going to post something else, but nothing came to mind.

Tamara James · Post by **Tamara James** » 7 Oct 2009 4:25 am

Roger Crawford wrote:I was going to post something else, but nothing came to mind.

I second that nothing.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 7 Oct 2009 6:27 am

Tamara James wrote:
Roger Crawford wrote:I was going to post something else, but nothing came to mind.
I second that nothing.

I nothing that second.

Matthew Walton · Post by **Matthew Walton** » 7 Oct 2009 7:08 pm

you'd think that with 68 pages about nothing that we'd be first on Google, but we're not even on the first page!

Richard Sevigny · Post by **Richard Sevigny** » 7 Oct 2009 8:40 pm

Does that mean that to Google we're NOTHING?

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 8 Oct 2009 6:26 am

Richard Sevigny wrote:Does that mean that to Google we're NOTHING?

Just consider this thread the black hole of the Humor Section.
It sucks everything in and is so powerful it can almost evade Google.
And, that's nothing to take lightly.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 8 Oct 2009 6:28 am

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 8 Oct 2009 6:30 am

The above post just shows you what a series of black holes can do.
They sucked everything off the page and left nothing but the black holes.

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 8 Oct 2009 6:47 am

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 8 Oct 2009 6:53 am

Actually Bob, your post is miss titled.
I can see clearly, that's a polar bear fighting his way through a snowstorm.

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 8 Oct 2009 6:56 am

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 8 Oct 2009 12:32 pm

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

O

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 8 Oct 2009 4:20 pm

Those are white holes.

If black holes suck, do white holes blow ? $:\$ $:\$

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 9 Oct 2009 6:22 am

No !! Check again...the white center is the nothing we have been discussing. The black border defines the black hole.

Did I get that right??

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 9 Oct 2009 6:34 am

Paul Graupp wrote:...Did I get that right??...

Is it possible to get anything wrong in this topic ?

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 9 Oct 2009 7:16 am

After all of this valuable information posted here this is what I have to say:
BURMA SHAVE

But, maybe I should have said nothing.