Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor
From: shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net
Message-ID: <843@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Nov-86 20:45:07 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.843
Posted: Mon Nov 24 20:45:07 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Nov-86 09:49:42 EST
References: <6555@decwrl.DEC.COM> <16450@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <78@cogent.UUCP>
Reply-To: shor@sphinx.UUCP (Melinda Shore)
Organization: University of Chicago Consternation Center
Lines: 17
Xref: mnetor news.admin:46 news.misc:84

In article <78@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) writes:
>Jordan Hayes writes:
>>What's the difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You don't
>>have shit for brains" ...? I'm not sure ... *ugh*
>>
>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.

It was always my sense that the latter implies that the subject has less
than shit for brains, as in "You don't even have shit for brains," and is
therefore unquestionably derogatory.  But then I hesitate to mention what
I've got for brains ...
-- 
Melinda Shore                               ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor
University of Chicago Computation Center    XASSHOR@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet