Spoilsport. Go on back to the Shoutbox. See how you like it there. :p

Excuse the spelling edits btw. Must be my fish fingers.

(Accepting it would anyway have the odd result of allowing a caught and thrown-back fish to be called "wet" in opposition to its uncaptured comrades. Too inegalitarian for me.)

But even if we were to accept this "novel" definitional constraint, the fish prior to being birthed was not immersed in sea water but in some internal fluid of its parent. (And obviously this idea holds whether we consider the fish egg to be the fish or a (sub)container of it).

Beats magic crackers anyway.

Wish you wouldn't carp on about that.

Why has language bewitched us here? — Posty McPostface

It's a "hidden in full view" thing I guess.

What is extremely wet? How do you determine how wet you are? A fish never gets more wet unless it dies and disintegrates in the water -- then it would take on more water and be diluted. — Bitter Crank

Then we would be talking about disembodied fish parts not a fish. ;)

(imho :p)

The fish is wet but we don't need to say so. It's bloody obvious. That's the solution.

Beer may be though. Especially in a conversation like this.

But are you soaked, or is it just your cloths? — Banno

If it were just our clothes, we would say "my clothes are soaked" not "I am soaked". If only some of our clothes were soaked and for some reason we escaped the soaking, we would not say we were soaked. To be soaked we must be wet.

"Extremely wet; saturated." (Two meanings).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/soaked

"Dried" not "dry".



No. You can be soaked by rain without it penetrating your surface. See definition above.



What water repellent object did you have in mind?

(EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your edit until now).

"Covered or saturated with water or another liquid."

Covered (not infused with).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wet

Only the surface wetness varies. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but this is all that we refer to when we speak of being "wet". It does not mean the same as hydrated.

If the fish is soaking (wet), it's also wet. There is nothing ambiguous in this case.

E.g. "Make or allow (something) to become thoroughly wet by immersing it in liquid."
‘soak the beans overnight in water’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/soak

Well, what I’m upholding is that the fish isn’t soaking unless it then steps out of the water somehow — javra

To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.

Describing a fish in water as wet is superfluous (unless the bugger is wrapped up) but not any less accurate then describing a lizard in the desert as dry. It's superfluous because it's impossible not to be wet when fully submersed in and in direct contact with water, but not impossible not to be dry when on land.

So wetness admits of degrees? — Banno

Yes, hence phrases like "soaking wet".

If I step in a puddle, am I wet? — Banno

In that case the part of you that stepped in the puddle would be wet (if exposed). The rest not necessarily so. And if the rest of you were dry whether you say you are as a whole wet or not is a matter of taste. You both are and you are not unlike a fish fully submerged in water, which most definitely is.

If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into the water, at what specific point do I become wet? — Banno

See above.

Do you become less wet or wetter when you jump into a swimming pool? How about when you climb out (considering that water falls from you onto your surroundings)? Is there any reason things should be different for a fish?

I doubt it'll break $20K. Pixie dust will only sell to the extent that people believe in pixie dust and crucially also believe that other people believe in it. The current boost has been driven by positive mainstream news headlines that suggested there was money to be made in BTC and blogs all over the internet that suggested the same (probably self-servingly in most cases). But at this point with the media already turning to mostly bubble talk it's a case for any investor with their eyes even half open of "I know the guy is naked but just how blind is the rest of the crowd?"

(I don't think that has much to do with its intrinsic worth as a currency tool btw as any intrinsic worth it has from that perspective is still going to be closer to $1 per unit than even $100).

Down 7% on the hour. Fun to watch.

So we're on what, delusion? Or new paradigm?

Moved to Questions category.

we should really try to keep a lid on it — Bitter Crank

Agreed. And thanks to all who have publicly and privately expressed their support for this decision. I know the majority here wish TimeLine well and it's much appreciated.

Now though, this thread is being closed as sufficient discussion has occurred for the moderator group to understand and note the perspective of the few complainants we have had. If any members wish to raise issues that relate to this topic but which have not yet been raised in this discussion, they may be communicated by PM to one of the moderators.

Yes, it's win-win really. No one need feel insecure. It's not like we ever listen to Hanover anyway. (Y)

Let's all take a chill pill and try a reset. — Benkei

Amen.

I plead the fifth. :-x

Fair enough. It's not for everyone. But I hope I speak for most of us here when I wish Timeline the best in her new role.

Let's not tell them that while we've got them chomping at the bit. ;)

Not sure when the next vacancy will arise but everyone is welcome to submit their interest at any time. It does help to know who's up for it and who's not.

Appreciate your help on that. (Y)

For a start, we don't have any vacancies now. And there are better potential candidates when we do imo.

I agree we should have as much diversity as possible on the mod team. I would rather have @ArguingWAristotleTiff on board next time than some of those you mentioned though.

Maybe so, but you and I both know that discussion of moderation has occurred in the Shoutbox quite frequently in the past, discussion the mods engaged in and didn't choose to shut down, so appeals to the guidelines don't have much affect on me. — Thorongil

Quick comment on this as I have a minute. I think it benefits the complainant too to have a dedicated discussion in Feedback for their particular complaint rather than have it interspersed with other comments that have nothing to do with it. And it's debatable how relevant the old discussion was but I don't think it's too much to ask to start a new discussion on a new complaint if it's more than just a one-off protest comment.

I have to go to real world work now actually, so I'll leave it to someone else for now. Anyway, the mod team as a whole agreed on making @TimeLine a mod.

We don't have an exhaustive set of rules to cover every occasion. Use your common sense and open a new discussion about a new topic.

If you want to make a new complaint, make a new discussion, don't bump an old feedback discussion.

+ Re where to put complaints - From the guidelines:

"When it comes to moderating decisions, however, [mods] are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. When it comes to moderating decisions, however, they are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. Do not use other discussions to do this or your comments will be deemed off-topic and will be subject to deletion."

(Which is why I deleted the Shout box comments and asked you to take your complaint here.)

OK, I'm positive YourLeaderSapientia has a small dick.