[email protected]

In a message dated 05/04/2000 8:57:07 PM !!!First Boot!!!, fxfireob@...
writes:

<<
i am curious has to why both you and david (et al) have a problem with the
use
in this context. maybe my understanding of the word round is too broad but
when
i read the definition in webster's it was exactly what i thought it meant
and it
seems to be use correctly. does your problem stem from understanding round
as
a 2d quality and not a 3d one?
-susan
>>


No. That's not it.

The picture I get in my head when I hear someone describe the earth as round
is a beach ball. Any ball. A perfectly round ball.

That's not the shape of the earth.

So it doesn't seem like an exact enough choice to me. And actually finding
out about the actual shape of the earth (bulges, etc.) is interesting enough,
to me anyway, to be just picky enough to say "well, you know, it's not
actually round" -- not in the way I picture round when I hear it. And I
think a lot of people would think of round as marble-type round, not
irregular-pear-shaped, bulgy-pebble-shaped round.

Is that at all clear?

Nance

susan

nance,

thanks this explains it. i can see where you're coming from now. one of the
things i enjoy about life is just how we each interpret things a bit
differently. the native americans believe we each sit in a circle and when
viewing something we each view it from a different angle. so if someone 'sits'
near you your perspectives are easily understood - very similar. but if two
people 'sit' far apart the views can differ radically but this does not change
the thing which is being viewed just the interpretation of it. hence my
favorite quote -'unity through diversity' thanks for taking the time to bring
me to your perspective.

marbleface@... wrote:

>
> The picture I get in my head when I hear someone describe the earth as round
> is a beach ball. Any ball. A perfectly round ball.
>
> That's not the shape of the earth.
>
> So it doesn't seem like an exact enough choice to me. And actually finding
> out about the actual shape of the earth (bulges, etc.) is interesting enough,
> to me anyway, to be just picky enough to say "well, you know, it's not
> actually round" -- not in the way I picture round when I hear it. And I
> think a lot of people would think of round as marble-type round, not
> irregular-pear-shaped, bulgy-pebble-shaped round.
>
> Is that at all clear?
>
> Nance

yes it is very clear. personally i would feel very comfortable using the word
round to describe a pear or a head or a face. to me round can be use to
describe anything which has a curved surface and some sense of fullness. to
describe a marble i would qualify round with perfect - a marble is perfectly
round.

i can understand why round would be a problem for some especially since globes,
which are suppose to represent the earth, are marble-like/ perfectly round the
assumption would be the earth is as well and this is very misleading.

thanks again,
susan
austin, tx
'unity through diversity'