Hmmm. Given that "better" is (by its very definition) better than "good", but not as good as "best", then would "better than good" imply a state that is somewhere between "good" and "better"?
Clearly, "better" is smack-dab in the middle, between "good" and "best".
The phrase "better than good", since the author chose to be explicit, and did not simply say "better", implies a that it's intended to occupy a different position in the "good" to "best" spectrum than the unadorned "better" does.
However, it clearly cannot be positioned between "better" and "best", because any position therein would, by definition, be "better than better", but the author only promised "better than good".
Thus, the only area available for possible ranking would be less than "better", but more than "good".
Consequently, "better than good" can only mean "worse than better", and can never rise to the quality of "better".
This makes the author's assertion more of an apology.
Please send your submissions via email to bethanykeeley (at) gmail.com. I look at them all, but it might take a while to get to yours -- sorry! I love you all, but I only have so much energy in a day.
If you want your picture to make the blog DO NOT @tweet them, or leave them in a comment. I need them all in the same place. Make sure your emails are easily distinguishable from spam or viruses (I use gmail web interface, so images get previews).
I don't usually post the following: newspaper headlines, personal email, craigslist postings, unprofessional websites. I also tend to not crosspost things from other blogs, since I have so much unique material waiting for me to get to it.
Things I see a lot: silica gel "do not eat"; hair dryer labels; inside the bus "do not drill"; Wal-mart sign about IDs; coffee machine with "2" cup sizes; employees must "wash hands"; that failblog post.
2 comments:
There is no "better than good," just differing degrees of goodness. And sometimes they use their toes.
Hmmm. Given that "better" is (by its very definition) better than "good", but not as good as "best", then would "better than good" imply a state that is somewhere between "good" and "better"?
Clearly, "better" is smack-dab in the middle, between "good" and "best".
The phrase "better than good", since the author chose to be explicit, and did not simply say "better", implies a that it's intended to occupy a different position in the "good" to "best" spectrum than the unadorned "better" does.
However, it clearly cannot be positioned between "better" and "best", because any position therein would, by definition, be "better than better", but the author only promised "better than good".
Thus, the only area available for possible ranking would be less than "better", but more than "good".
Consequently, "better than good" can only mean "worse than better", and can never rise to the quality of "better".
This makes the author's assertion more of an apology.
Post a Comment