Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ukma!sean
From: sean@ukma.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net
Message-ID: <5200@ukma.uky.csnet>
Date: Tue, 25-Nov-86 18:56:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.5200
Posted: Tue Nov 25 18:56:31 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Nov-86 06:35:04 EST
References: <6555@decwrl.DEC.COM> <16450@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <78@cogent.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath news.admin:39 news.misc:77

In article <78@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) writes:
>Simple.  "You have shit for brains" means that your brain is made primarily
>of shit.  "You don't have shit for brains" means that your brain is made
>primarily of things other than shit.  The second of the two is, of course,
>much less definitive, and could, therefore, be a compliment or an insult.
>I suppose you could take it however you want to.

The second is actually an insult.  Think of the phrase "We don't have shit".
What this means is that we don't have anything, not even shit.  I think of
"You don't have shit for brains" as being in the same context.  The person
who is the recipient of the insult not only doesn't have brains, he doesn't
even have shit for brains.  In this respect, the insult is even worse than
"You have shit for brains".

Sean
-- 
===========================================================================
Sean Casey      UUCP:  cbosgd!ukma!sean           CSNET:  sean@ms.uky.csnet
		ARPA:  ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa    BITNET:  sean@UKMA.BITNET