......searches for a word that takes bore to a new level......

I really think this guy may have the answer for us. We should ask him.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...postcount=7510

Just don't ask him in person.

But, the question isn't "is the foot alone sufficient to indicate the entire leg?" The question is, essentially, do "the thigh, knee, calf, and foot" (together) all belong to "the leg," or do they belong to two separate groups, "the leg," and "the foot."

This is clearly inclusive of the entire leg, the only part being in question is how far the inclusiveness continues to be in effect; so therefore I fail to see the relevance of your "if only [single body part] is involved" argument.

if you were to encounter a foot amputee, I think you'd probably still view them as aving two legs. but if you encountered a leg amputee, you wouldn't count them as still having two feet. so I think we've reached the abortion question. if the foot cannot survive without the leg, does it have rights which are independant of the rights of the leg? If you believe a fetus is a separate, sacred life, then you must vote for a foot not being part of the leg.....

:lol:

:stickpoke

Foot is part of leg as leg is part of body, grasshopper.

And when you remove $20 from your checking account, you still have a checking account. A "part of" something can be removed.

... as hand is part of arm ... Not!

We need a Godwin's law for mentioning the abortion debate. Let's call it Monster's Proclamation!!!!!11!1!!! If the current topic is likened to the abortion debate, no futher on-topic posting is allowed with the exception of other similes and metaphors

:lol:

I am autonomous
I am autonomous
I am autonomous

How many times do I have to tell you?