OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 15:26
Quote Posted by littlek
What does being an American have to do with all this? :rolleyes:
"I could care less" is a phrase that is only used by Americans.
Stitch on 24/5/2006 at 15:26
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's not a history book. He could say EVERYTHING IN THIS BOOK IS 100% TRUE 50 times, and it doesn't change the fact that it's still a
work of fiction and published as such. Only an idiot will take it at face value. Sure, it's all "true," "accurate" and/or "facts,"
within the context of the novel. My copy of Dune had a 100 page glossary at the end of it, that doesn't mean I think it's the Oxford Fucking English Dictionary.
Dude, now you're just trying to squabble. You're viewing <U>The DaVinci Code</U> book in a vacuum sealed environment, removed from its immense success and impact. And I'm also getting the distinct impression you haven't read the piece of shit, either.
As much as it pains me to admit it, in this case fett is right.
Dia on 24/5/2006 at 15:27
Saw the movie last night and was rather disappointed. Hanks appeared to be sleepwalking his way through the entire two plus hours and the movie definitely suffered due to his lackluster performance (he sounded/looked like he had the flu throughout the whole first half of the movie & should have been home in bed, poor man). The movie's continuity people also seemed to have been asleep on the job. Even though I've read the novel I found myself straining to remember what some of the references were that were made in the movie because the screenwriters never went into much depth [SPOILER](excuse me, but not a whole lot of people are going to know what Fibonnaci numbers/Golden Section are or what relevance they have to the movie - or maybe I was already dozing). [/SPOILER] I can only imagine how confused some might be if they hadn't read the book in the first place. It flops as an action/adventure film and doesn't quite cut it as a suspense thriller either.
Audrey Tautou & Ian McKellan were great; the rest of the cast were meh ('k, well Paul Bettany came close, but was over the top with that silly accent).
The novel was more interesting, as far as fictional works go.
fett on 24/5/2006 at 15:34
For fuck's sake OB. I FUCKING COULD CARE LESS because I don't care as much as I could potentially. Anything relevant to add to the thread? Don't be such a twat.
Quote:
Originally posted by Stitch You're viewing The DaVinci Code book in a vacuum sealed environment
Maybe I'm totally off base here and it makes no difference outside of acadamia, but in my experience, books/movies/events such as Davinci code are all too often exactly the resources people use to come to actual, real world conclusions about everything from the enviornment, to politics, to meta-physical issues. It's bad enough when it's a stupid novel, it's even worse when the author, in both the novel and in interviews, continually states that the background is fact.
OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 15:36
Quote Posted by fett
For fuck's sake OB. I FUCKING COULD CARE LESS because I don't care as much as I could potentially. Anything relevant to add to the thread? Don't be such a twat.
oh my god you still don't understand
okay i give up
Stitch on 24/5/2006 at 15:39
Quote Posted by fett
For fuck's sake OB. I FUCKING COULD CARE LESS because I don't care as much as I could potentially.
ERRRTT, wrong, try again!
If you "couldn't care less," it means you care so little that there is no level beneath it. You don't give a shit at all. If you "could care less" it means you care somewhat, possibly a lot. Whatever level you're at, it's at the very least above the lowest level of caring, as, well, you could possibly care less!
fett on 24/5/2006 at 15:39
Yah - I said that wrong. I could actually care less - for instance, if I was homeless and dying from starvation I would care less about it than I do in my current situation. Since I don't have any other major drama going on in my life right now, I care more about this than I actually have to. So I COULD care less, but I don't.
OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 15:45
Quote Posted by fett
Yah - I said that wrong. I could actually care less - for instance, if I was homeless and dying from starvation I would care less about it than I do in my current situation. Since I don't have any other major drama going on in my life right now, I care more about this than I actually have to. So I COULD care less, but I don't.
that is such a load of convoluted crap to try to wish away a very simple and fundamental misunderstanding of a phrase
LESS = MORE ???? :confused:
I COULD CARE LESS means that you care so much that the "potential" you mentioned is negative. You can only care less and less because you have reached a point where you care so much, the only way to go with the amount that you care is down. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT SOMETHING OKAY
I COULD CARE MORE because I care so little, the only way is up! THAT MAKES SENSE BUT IS CLUMSY AND BESIDES THE POINT
or, ALTERNATIVELY, the ORIGINAL PHRASE
I COULDN'T CARE LESS! BECAUSE I CARE SO LITTLE, THE POSSIBILITY OF CARING LESS IS ZERO!
this is very simple, and that bizarre example you've given above is rather pointless and more or less irrelevant, and absolutely isn't what you're implying when you say "i could care less". you're just getting it wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG
edit anyway that's enough of this for me, i have shit to do and i can't believe i still get so angry about words sometimes!
Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2006 at 15:46
I thought could vs couldn't care less was like LEGO vs LEGOS. Turns out I've been excusing daft expressions from Americans for far too long!
Anyway, cheap at half the price? What's up with that?!
