> > >Moah indicated he did not get the reference. Looking on Google gives the
> > >reference.
> >Wrong. Moah says he did not understand why it was funny. Looking
> >at google doesn't explain that nor did your tart response.
>Tart response?
Yes.
>For this list?
Yes.
>Compared to your deliberately being obtuse?
I wasn't being obtuse at all.
>Fact 1. The original post did not say that calling a ship "Paris Commune"
>was funny.
He did so in the context of the HMS Beaver, implying that naming the ship the Paris Commune was funny. Moreso he did not explain why it was inappropriate for a ship.
>Fact 2. There is nothing funny about the paris commune. Anyone who got the
>reference would know that.
You have not eliminated the possibility that there might be a funny reference about the Paris Commune reference that was not widely known. Such was the impression that I gained from both Steward's initial post and Moah's followup even though I knew what the 1871 Paris Commune was all about. I could hazard that the reference might be to the Paris student riots of 1968 which would be an odd thing for the Soviets to commemorate but I do not know.
Even if I assume that there is no funny reference about the Paris Commune, I still do not know why the name is inappropriate for a ship.
>Fact 3. That Moah misunderstood the post, believing there was a joke, shows
>he didn't get the reference.
It shows no such thing. It only shows that he didn't understand what Steward's point was.
>Fact 4. Looking up the reference on Google answers his question.
No, it doesn't. It only answers what the Paris Commune was, not why it was an inappropriate name for a ship.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail