Glad Rag Kraken had forgotten that he's already voted "agree" on the "Vodka Martini's are not a Martini" claim when he disagreed with my claim.

Whoah, exactly my friend. A vodka martini is neither an abomination, nor a martini. This is internally consistent.

You claimed that recognized the legitimacy of a vodka martini. And you also claimed that a vodka martini is not a martini.

Your logic-fu is weak.

I demand you cede your gin cred.

Fie. A vodka martini is not a martini, but just as gin tonics and vodka tonics are different, but legitimate and acceptable drinks, so are martinis and vodka martinis.

What he did makes sense to me. He said a vodka martini is not a martini. You said that everything other than a martini that ends in tini is an abomination.

Since a vodka martini is not a martini, it clearly does not fall under your other than a martini clause. As he feels that a vodka martini is not an abomination there is something other than a martini that ends in tini and is not an abomination, which is a vodka martini.

Entirely consistent.

To say that a vodka martini is not a martini means that you should not CALL IT a martini, since it is not one.

The drink is perfectly tasty, but it is an abomination to apply the misnomer.

Rachel - the conflct lies in his saying he "recognizes the legitimacy of the vodka martini" while denying that a vodka martini is a martini.

You cannot accept the legitimacy of something you deny exists.

I don't think that necessarily follows.

To impute something is legitimate necessarily implies that it exists.

No, I mean saying that because a vodka martini is not a martini it shouldn't be called a "vodka martini" is not necessarily true and certainly does not follow from the previously voted on claims.

To say "vodka martini is not a martini" means that it is not a subtype of martini. The martini is a specific and described thing, with a precice meaning. To add a qualifier - "vodka" martini is to negate its own meaning.

Just like you cannot have "Napa Valley Champagne" - because "Champagne" is a defined category which specifically excludes all things not-itself.

If English were a sane language, you would be right.

Have you looked into logban as an alternative? I was fairly advanced at one point.

I don't think it requires the language to be perfect, just the understanding that certain things are very precisely defined and to misuse creates sentences which - while they might be decipherable to intent... Napa Champagne and Vodka Martinis - are not meaningful.

Still, Ben is neither sane, nor reliably fluent in English, so I'll take what I can get... and propose a toast to the vodka abomination