[ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

[John Day]

It was a joke.

An allusion with meaning only to me, to the inconsistency we often 
find in documents by engineers, where the contexts don't match the 
title, or the frontspiece to the first collection of Shoe cartoons 
that had Shoe standing on a branch, cigar firmly clenched in his 
bill, saying some thing close to, "To make this book easier to read, 
it has been divided into 3 sections, 1, 2, and c."

Or it was the allusion to the Monty Python cliche, that says always 
goes there are "two good reasons for . . ." but before the speaker 
finishes he thinks of 3 and so it goes!

At the time, there many examples of that.

Yes, couple should be two, as in coupling train cars, but I am afraid 
Bernie is right, the language keeps getting sloppy, think of how 
"architecture" means something built to an architecture rather than 
the class; or how topology is suppose to mean graph, rather than a 
mapping that preserves an invariance, one could go on and on.

At 14:57 +0000 2011/12/19, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>A 'couple' is by definition two (of anything) and two only except 
>when means a link between two things (as in a chain).
>
>
>
>Nigel
>
>
>
>
>On 12/19/2011 02:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 12/19/2011 4:28 AM, John Day wrote:
>>>s "a couple" limited to 2? ;-)
>>
>>
>>Not in an open marriage.
>>
>>d/