Jonathan: The definitive Accounting Principles

[DoobieDo]

Roll On t'Floor Laughing Arse My Off?

you're not known as troll stupidman without reason....

 

[Troy Steadman]

But they *don't* "say the same thing" !!
If they did, they'd have the same meaning! (which they don't)

The opposite of "material" is "immaterial" meaning "unimportant".
Bearing that in mind Tim perhaps you'd explain how:

"Anything unimportant need not be shown"

....differs from...

"Anything material *must* be shown"

....except in ephasis. In the same way that "half full" differs from
"half empty" in emphasis.

 

[Tim]

The opposite of "material" is "immaterial" meaning "unimportant".
Bearing that in mind Tim perhaps you'd explain how:

"Anything unimportant need not be shown"
...differs from...
"Anything material *must* be shown"

OK. With the first, we don't know whether material things *need* to be
shown or not - whereas we do with the second.
Similarly, with the second, we don't know whether or not unimportant things
need not be shown - whereas we do with the first.

In the same way that "half full"
differs from "half empty" ...

Well, everyone knows that a cup/glass/bowl(whatever) is almost always
"totally full".
It's just that half might have a liquid in it, and half might have a gas
(air)!

 

[Troy Steadman]

OK. With the first, we don't know whether material things *need* to be
shown or not - whereas we do with the second.
Similarly, with the second, we don't know whether or not unimportant things
need not be shown - whereas we do with the first.


Well, everyone knows that a cup/glass/bowl(whatever) is almost always
"totally full".
It's just that half might have a liquid in it, and half might have a gas
(air)!

Almost always? Suppose half of it had a solid in it and half of it had
a vacuum in it. Then it would truly be half full and half empty.

 

[Ronald Raygun]

Almost always? Suppose half of it had a solid in it and half of it had
a vacuum in it. Then it would truly be half full and half empty.

Come off it. I'll bet you've never seen a glass like that. There is
no such thing as a vacuum, just gas at exceedingly low pressure.

 

[DoobieDo]

Come off it. I'll bet you've never seen a glass like that. There is
no such thing as a vacuum, just gas at exceedingly low pressure.

Actually we've got a vacuum, the wife usually[1] uses it around the house.

 

[Tim]

Almost always?

Yes!

Suppose half of it had a solid in it and half of it had a
vacuum in it. Then it would truly be half full and half empty.

Exactly - that's why I said: " *almost* always " !!

As a matter oif interest, how often have you come across a cup/glass/bowl
with a *vacuum* in half of it?

 

[Troy Steadman]

Come off it. I'll bet you've never seen a glass like that. There is
no such thing as a vacuum, just gas at exceedingly low pressure.

Actually we've got a vacuum, the wife usually[1] uses it around the house.

If she's married to you there are three vacuums in your house: the one
the wife uses to clean the dust and the one you both use to whisper
sweet nothings!

 

[Troy Steadman]

Yes!


Exactly - that's why I said: " *almost* always " !!

As a matter oif interest, how often have you come across a cup/glass/bowl
with a *vacuum* in half of it?

Dozens of times. Shall I list them out?

 

[Tim]

Dozens of times. Shall I list them out?

Just describe as many as you feel able!

 

[Troy Steadman]

Just describe as many as you feel able!

Cups is easy. Glass I might put togethr in easy-to-read instalments.
Bowls - it depends whether we include Ronald's definition of a vacuum:
"gas at exceedingly low pressure"?

 

[DoobieDo]

If she's married to you there are three vacuums in your house: the one
the wife uses to clean the dust and the one you both use to whisper
sweet nothings!

Three vacuums ?

a) one the wife uses
b) one you both use

Troll Stupidman strikes again... typical failed accountant!!

c) no reasons to whisper...

 

[Tim]

Cups is easy...

If it's so easy, why haven't you mentioned any?

 

[Troy Steadman]

If it's so easy, why haven't you mentioned any?

On the earliest occasion I was a young man and had just bought my first
steam-powered hyper-condensing vacuum cleaner from Gamages. Our kitchen
pantry had a weak patent hinge at that time. On the shelf where the
cups were stored someone had placed a bag of Atrixo. The ironing board
folded down out of the wall...

....but Tim you haven't commented on Ronald's definition? Nor have you
"done a Martin" on "cups is easy"?

 

[Ronald Raygun]

Cups is easy. Glass I might put togethr in easy-to-read instalments.
Bowls - it depends whether we include Ronald's definition of a vacuum:
"gas at exceedingly low pressure"?

I think we should henceforth refer as "doing a Troy" to the act
of presenting as someone's definition of something the exact opposite
of what should in context have been obvious what that someone meant.

I had said "I'll bet you've never seen a glass like that [being such
that, in your words, 'half of it had a vacuum in it']. There is
no such thing as a vacuum, just gas at exceedingly low pressure."

Is it not obvious that I meant that you had at best seen a glass
with low pressure gas in it, but never one with an actual vacuum?

 

[Ronald Raygun]

On the earliest occasion I was a young man and had just bought my first
steam-powered hyper-condensing vacuum cleaner from Gamages. Our kitchen
pantry had a weak patent hinge at that time. On the shelf where the
cups were stored someone had placed a bag of Atrixo. The ironing board
folded down out of the wall...

Allow me to congratulate you on your entertaining prosaic style, and
on your highly effective use of the literary device of fading out to
a commercial break just before the punchline. So what's going to happen
to the bag of trix?

OK, now you've mentioned cups. But not with a vacuum in half of them.
It's beginning to look more like halves of cups are going to end up in
the hoover.