Defend this one

[Clonie]

Excuse me SIR |-/ :-P , but you missed the whole thing:

"How many woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, since if it could chuck wood then it could chuck the wood's weight in woodchucks, that is if it could chuck enough wood to equal the weight of a woodchuck?"

:-)

[Starwars4J]

Excuse me SIR |-/ :-P , but you missed the whole thing:

"How many woodchucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, since if it could chuck wood then it could chuck the wood's weight in woodchucks, that is if it could chuck enough wood to equal the weight of a woodchuck?"

:-)

But that still makes no sense. A woodchuck can chuck wood? Great! Does that mean it can chuck another woodchuck? No. But assuming it could chuck another woodchuck, how would we base it on? Even the original quote "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" makes no sense, since you have no way of telling. You'd need the rate of chuckage (the Ca). The ability to chuck does not inherently give any means to find the rate. The quote SHOULD read (to make any sense):

How many woodchucks could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck can chuck x woodchucks in n seconds

Filling in x and n of course. Even comparing the chucking rate of wood to the ability to chuck woodchucks yields nothing, as if I know the rate at which I could chuck marbles, that doesn't give me a clue as to my car-chucking rate.

[Corvus]

But that still makes no sense. A woodchuck can chuck wood? Great! Does that mean it can chuck another woodchuck? No. But assuming it could chuck another woodchuck, how would we base it on? Even the original quote "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" makes no sense, since you have no way of telling. You'd need the rate of chuckage (the Ca). The ability to chuck does not inherently give any means to find the rate. The quote SHOULD read (to make any sense):

Filling in x and n of course. Even comparing the chucking rate of wood to the ability to chuck woodchucks yields nothing, as if I know the rate at which I could chuck marbles, that doesn't give me a clue as to my car-chucking rate.

:-D What an exellent use of your college education... I think. :-P

[Clonie]

The answer to the question depends on how much wood a woodchuck can chuck, namely if it can chuck another woodchuck's weight in wood at one time. Similar to if you can chuck a car's weight in marbles, that determines that you can chuck one car. So...

If a woodchuck can chuck wood, could it chuck another woodchuck's weight in wood at one time?

The answer is yes, however it doesn't necessarily mean that a woodchuck can actually chuck that amount of wood, it only means that if it can, then it should be able to chuck something that equals it in weight.

[Starwars4J]

The answer to the question depends on how much wood a woodchuck can chuck, namely if it can chuck another woodchuck's weight in wood at one time. Similar to if you can chuck a car's weight in marbles, that determines that you can chuck one car. So...

If a woodchuck can chuck wood, could it chuck another woodchuck's weight in wood at one time?

The answer is yes, however it doesn't necessarily mean that a woodchuck can actually chuck that amount of wood, it only means that if it can, then it should be able to chuck something that equals it in weight.

You have to remember that the ease of chuckage comes into play. Which is easier for YOU to chuck? A chair, or the weight of a chair in pillows? The pillows should be more difficult, due to larger physical size, and relative difficulty in handling compared to the chair. Not to mention wind resistance.

[Clonie]

You have to remember that the ease of chuckage comes into play. Which is easier for YOU to chuck? A chair, or the weight of a chair in pillows? The pillows should be more difficult, due to larger physical size, and relative difficulty in handling compared to the chair. Not to mention wind resistance.

Would you like to find out? :-D

Well, you're right, but that's what the question is asking. We're not taking about that, we're talking about how to phrase the question.

[Hinckley]

You have to remember that the ease of chuckage comes into play. Which is easier for YOU to chuck? A chair, or the weight of a chair in pillows? The pillows should be more difficult, due to larger physical size, and relative difficulty in handling compared to the chair. Not to mention wind resistance.

:-| :-| :-| :-| :-| What are you doing? I've already been through all this with the daft lad. He had almost dropped it all together and here you are fanning the flames again. Ugh. Never mind though, I think all he really wants is the last word, so... 8-|

[Clonie]

It's gone too far, eh?

[TheFrisian]

Just CHUCK the whole woodchuck topic >:-)

[john cleese]

Hinkley! I cant help but sense there was an ulterior motive behind the creation of this topic. :-D *cough* Gingerbeer */cough*

Now im tired of these damn wood chucks so I'm going to explain why i find nothing wrong with the classic "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood." The statement simply entertains the idea of a woodchuck chucking wood and asks how much wood he would be able to chuck if he had such chucking abilities. Now i'm no edumathematational type but I dont see the problem. I also dont know why we're talking about the woodchucks chucking eachother. When did they start doing that? did i miss the memo?

As long as we're solving life's great mysteries; what i find more challenging is determining whether the saying is "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less" which has been known to devide nations against themselves. If i might try to clear this up as breifly as possible.

The way i see it is if you couldn't care less then all you could do is care more and there is no limit to how much more you could care. Heck you could appear to have devoted your entire life to whatever it is your trying to express you do not care about at all. You'd look like an idiot, right? Especially if you were to say this to your mother-inlaw at thanksgiving dinner while you were drunk.

Conversely if you could care less, you could still care more, but you dont necessarily. At this point you can be nuetral and you thus have no strong opinion on the matter which is the definition of not caring. Let us also look at the options "i couldn't care more." and "I could care more." "I couldn't care more.": Well again you could be at any point on the spectrum of caring and you could only be motivated at this point to care less as you couldn't care any more than you do right now. There is also "I could care more." Well, 'I could care more' and 'I could care less' represent a more or less equal level of caring. Of course, if you truly want to appear to care as little as possible, you simply dont mention that you dont care. If you find the topic trivial, then surely you must find the fact that you dont care at all irelevant as well. If your being pestered on a matter you dont care about, you say "you're pestering me! If you dont leave me alone imediately i'll whack you."

Ok on to the next item:

What i find really challenging is determining whether or not god exists but we won't get in to that.

I have to wonder what our Chuck would have to say about woodchucks chucking things. He'd probably say the woodchucks suffer from FBS. :-D Should a woodchuck chuck woodchucks and wood, would chuck be chucked by the woodchucks or chuck wood at the woodchucks if they could chuck woodchucks chuck or wood? Whats the chance chuck would be chucked by the wood or even by woodchucks who hadnt evolved to the point where they could chuck would or chuck?

These are the important questions.

[iamded]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could Chuck Norris? X-D

I'm pretty sure I read that on this forum, in a spammy discussion about woodchucks in another thread.

~Peace

Edited October 23, 2007 by iamded

[Hinckley]

Just CHUCK the whole woodchuck topic >:-)

good idea :-P

[Clonie]

Just CHUCK the whole woodchuck topic >:-)

good idea :-P

Yay.

Now what? 8-|

[natelite]

maybe woodchucks and wood are related. if you can chuck wood you can chuck woodchucks. just a thought. 8-| maybe not. *wacko* *sweet*

Now what? 8-|

what now?? how about my greenie troll knight?

[Starwars4J]

As long as we're solving life's great mysteries; what i find more challenging is determining whether the saying is "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less" which has been known to devide nations against themselves. If i might try to clear this up as breifly as possible.

The way i see it is if you couldn't care less then all you could do is care more and there is no limit to how much more you could care. Heck you could appear to have devoted your entire life to whatever it is your trying to express you do not care about at all. You'd look like an idiot, right? Especially if you were to say this to your mother-inlaw at thanksgiving dinner while you were drunk.

Conversely if you could care less, you could still care more, but you dont necessarily. At this point you can be nuetral and you thus have no strong opinion on the matter which is the definition of not caring. Let us also look at the options "i couldn't care more." and "I could care more." "I couldn't care more.": Well again you could be at any point on the spectrum of caring and you could only be motivated at this point to care less as you couldn't care any more than you do right now. There is also "I could care more." Well, 'I could care more' and 'I could care less' represent a more or less equal level of caring. Of course, if you truly want to appear to care as little as possible, you simply dont mention that you dont care. If you find the topic trivial, then surely you must find the fact that you dont care at all irelevant as well.

I'd like to see someone over the age of 10 who actually says "I could care less" seriously...I use that example when I teach highschool kids, and THEY all know the correct way of saying it.

It's no great mystery..."I could care less" is just grammatically wrong...

[Visorak-kal]

Um, ignoring the whole woodchuck deal:

To answer the question, can i defend this one? Uh, yes, I can.

1. LEGO has released multiple versions of--things--like this over the year. They are promotional items that I don't think are made by LEGO in place of LEGO sets. If they did not make LEGO money, then LEGO would not continue to make them. Perhaps not much money, but I gather that LEGO does not have much to lose by selling them. So they make money.

2. I see no reason to buy it. So I don't. Why should this offend any of you? It's not like they're replacing LEGOs with this. They just released this to make a few extra bucks, for the little ones that may actually like it.

So if it makes LEGO money, and it doesn't take away from LEGOs, why should we complain about it? The way I see, if releasing stuff like this will help keep LEGO alive, then I'm all for it! I'm not being forced to buy it, and it's not replacing any LEGO sets, it just helps if even in the smallest manner. LEGO can keep making LEGOs because they are making MONEY. Everybody does things like this; I don't see why many of you make such a big deal over things like this. They're PROMOTIONS. They don't actually change the way LEGO thinks or does business; they are to MAKE MONEY. That's the whole point of LEGO's existence.

VK

[Hinckley]

So if it makes LEGO money, and it doesn't take away from LEGOs, why should we complain about it?

It's just fun to make fun of it. :-P

Either way, and several people have already made your point, I don't fault LEGO for trying to make money in this way. If they can keep their employees employed and keep producing great sets, wonderful. But do you think this particular product is really successful for them? It's listed under new products and it's already on clearance...blank stationary and colored pencils seems a little half-baked to me. I know that's what real Divers use... :-| ...but perhaps it doesn't translate well to a toy.

But, this thread is mostly for fun, so please don't hate the stationary too much and please don't take too much offense to those making fun of the stationary. And please send a LEGO keychain to Candians whose feelings have been hurt by this...

:-)

[yellost]

I love you guys! You must be the only ones I know who can spend seven pages of a board talking about wood, chuck and woodchuck while supposed to complain about (or defend) a useless pencil and paper set...

But then again, we're talking about something from the very Initiator of the much respected Ice Cube Tray Thread... so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised X-D

It's no great mystery..."I could care less" is just grammatically wrong...

call me dumb but I don't see how it's grammatically wrong... (I'm not talking about the intended meaning of the one saying it, here, just about the words in the sentence). I mean, you could say something like "as a suggestion, you could care less about your heart and maybe your tension will decrease" (sorry for the crappy example but it's the only one that popped in my mind...). Ok, I added something before and after the discussed sentence but it does hold IMO. But then again, since eanglish is'nt my mother language, I could be thousands of parsecs off :-/

"I couldn't care more.": Well again you could be at any point on the spectrum of caring

I don't see how you could be anywhere on the spectrum with a sentence like that (same goes for couldn't care less). I'd say if you couldn't care more, it means you're at the very edge of the spectrum and if you cared any more, you'd fall off or burst or whatever, so of course, you would still have the possibility to back away and start to care less but that isn't necessarily implied in the sentenced, whereas "I could care more" seems to mean that while you care, it's still not that big a deal to you.

As for the " I couldn't care less", I think that the very paradox is that you're trying to say that you have no opinion on the matter whatsoever while the sentence itself implies that you do (even if infinitesimally)

But that's what's great and at the same time soooo annoying about language, those funny situation.

Let's talk about the Nothing, for example. How can you technically talk about it since it actually shouldn't be? And yet we still manage to give it existence by word while there shouldn't be a point of doing so since by its very nature, describing him is doing the opposite of what it is(n't). *wacko*

Spreading the confusion ON

[Starwars4J]

call me dumb but I don't see how it's grammatically wrong... (I'm not talking about the intended meaning of the one saying it, here, just about the words in the sentence). I mean, you could say something like "as a suggestion, you could care less about your heart and maybe your tension will decrease" (sorry for the crappy example but it's the only one that popped in my mind...). Ok, I added something before and after the discussed sentence but it does hold IMO. But then again, since eanglish is'nt my mother language, I could be thousands of parsecs off :-/

It's called an idiom error ;-) That is considered by the literary community, for all intents and purposes, to be a grammatical error.

[hewkii9]

I love you guys! You must be the only ones I know who can spend seven pages of a board talking about wood, chuck and woodchuck while supposed to complain about (or defend) a useless pencil and paper set...

But then again, we're talking about something from the very Initiator of the much respected Ice Cube Tray Thread... so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised X-D

Actually, I started the Woodchuck/Wood/Tractor/Grammar/Chucking Ratio thing. *sweet*

[captaintau]

With this whoel "chuck" thing, you've missing one importnat chuck: The Nunchuck!

So, how much wood would a ninja woodchuck nunchuck if a ninja woodchuck could nunchuck wood?

Yes, I realise, that the Ninja, didn't actually use nunchucks (properly romanised to "Nunchaku"), but this is far less error that the stupid Americanism "could care less"!

[gylman]

This whole thread makes me want to upchuck.

Except for the awesome Adventurers gear someone showed a photo of some posts back of course. *wub*

[Starwars4J]

So, how much wood would a ninja woodchuck nunchuck if a ninja woodchuck could nunchuck wood?

I could care less

(:-P)

[gylman]

Um, ignoring the whole woodchuck deal:

They're PROMOTIONS. They don't actually change the way LEGO thinks or does business; they are to MAKE MONEY. That's the whole point of LEGO's existence.

VK

Strictly speaking PROMO items are not for the direct purpose of making money. They are to PROMOTE product visibility and indirectly to lead to the making of more money.

p.s.

GO ADVENTURERS

[Captain Green Hair]

Well,

You could melt the plastic and mold some custrom parts out of it? :-P

Maybe if it had studs.... you could make some lineal car or something...

Maybe lego thinks we make sketches of our MOCS, so they can steal the plans...

Maybe they think it's cold, throw it in the fireplace..

Maybe....errr....uhm...

I don't know, what the hell where they thinking???? X-D