The Passion of the Christ -- ** SPOILERS **

R

R

they said on TV that since this is R, that they don't think any movie will ever get an NC17

"R"

i don't know about that. americans are pretty uptight about sexuality but comfortable with violence. if something sufficiently sexual came along, it would get an NC17

mark

Heheh I love it.

It's alright for my kids to go see violent movies (claim to reasons kids go psycho and hurt people).

But I don't want them seeing anything with sex in it, that could just corrupt their little minds. (rolls eyes)

But theres no "Sexuality" in it, just violence. But it is Freedom Of Speech.

That's why it's rated R and not NC17, becuase there is NO sexuality/sexual content.

In the english language, when we describe a series of events it is implied that they are listed in order. unless otherwise specified they are assumed to be listed in order. so, in a sense, there is an invisible "then" there.

In the example you supply, the big mac is not an event itself, it is an additional descriptor belonging to the original action of eating. however, if the above person said "I ate, I drank, I got up and left" it would be understood that the person first ate something, then drank something, then left, even if they first drank then ate then left.

Mark

i hear ya there b_heyer. europeans are the opposite: they tend to be sensitive to violence but very comfortable with sexuality. you go walking down the street and there's posters with boobs everywhere advertising anything you can think of. i did a double take the first few weeks I was in germany! porn stores all over the place too.

Mark

Absolutely not true. In fact, common sense dictates otherwise.

If I say, "I hate my oil changed. I had my tired inflated. I had my windshield wipers replaced," it does not imply that those events occured in that particular sequence. Rather, it simply means that all those events took place, with absolutely no regard for sequence. One might assume that they happened in that particular order, but this is a reckless and unwarranted assumption.

Indeed, everyday examples abound. If I say, "I went out with Chelsea on a date. I picked her up at seven," this does not imply that the date occured before I picked her up. Similarly, if I say, "I finished grad school last year. I wrote my thesis on Aztec culture," it does not imply that I finished grad school before writing my thesis. And so forth, and so on.

You are not going to win this argument. I can trot out dozens of examples which prove this point... but the examples which I've already mentioned are more than enough.

Any "implication" of sequence exists purely in your mind. There is absolutely no rule of English grammar wich states that "Statement A. Sttement B. Statement C." automatically mans that A occured before B, or that B happened before C.

heh movie to Canada, we could give goat's feces about that kind of stuff, generally your "R" is the ecuivalent of our "14A" which means that you have to be 14 to see the movie alone, but if you are with someone 18 plus, you can go in at the age of 8

You might infer that, but that would be a false inference. A reasonable indivdual would NOT infer that all your eating occured before all your drinking. Rather, a reasonable individual would simply infer that you ate AND drank, without insisiting on any particular order to these events.

A reasonable reader would never ASSUME event happened in the order other than that of which they were given. A proper reader should take everything at face value unless it is know that there is a bias in the description of the event, in which case the reader would still assume that those events happened, but might be a little leary on assuming that all information given was correct

Actually Dekanos, with your previous examples none of them actually abide
to our current argument. The third sentence MUST come after the previous
two because in your first post you stated "then". The word "then" delimits a
state of time, which occurs after the previously mentioned.

Then is defined as: Soon afterward, or immediately; next; afterward.

Also with your original statement there is no need for inference, or any need
for me to "create" a pattern of events. I simply have to go look up in the
bible and I will see that Jesus was nailed to the cross, then died, then rose
from the dead. That IS how it happened, there IS NO inference there, it's
fact, or at least cited as such from the bible.

I have never seen a work of prose written in non-inverse sentence structure
where the events fell into reverse order. It defies logic to state event A
after even B occurs.

In the Big Mac example "Had" does not imply "ate" so he could have easily
gone to eat someplace and had a big mac in his pocket.

I can't count the number of times that my parents went out to eat, and/then/also got something to bring home for me.