Re: cudiments
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: patty: "Re: cudiments"
- Previous message: Gactimus: "Evolutionism the religion"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:30:58 GMT
Lester Zick wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:03 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>Albert wrote:
>>
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>For some reason cudiments strikes my fancy whereas pottes doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>It feels to me like a bad weld between a cow chewing its 'cud' and
>>>'condiments', with subtle overtones of 'codpiece'.
>>>
>>
>>Which is good because it was intended to have a negative connotation.
>>It comes from "cudies" which are things with which dirty boys are
>>expected to be infected. Incidentally you won't find "cudies" in Webster
>>but you will find it at Google.
>
>
> That's only because the conventional spelling I'm familiar with is
> "cooty" which is a louse the plural of which is lice
Which just goes to show you that Google is better at this stuff than
Webster ... check out <http://www.google.com/search?q=cudies>.
> and which girls
> are just as likely to have according to their particular cudiments.
Really? How would you know?
patty
- Next message: patty: "Re: cudiments"
- Previous message: Gactimus: "Evolutionism the religion"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: cudiments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|