I'm not on a witchhunt, and don't care who reported it. But, whoever reported that review as a dupe did in fact get it wrong as it's clear on a second glance that it's meaning is totally different from the other and that it is not a dupe.
I wouldn't have reported this, but I think it was a valid position for someone to want to do so. They are not totally different, as far as I can tell. Aren't they both just puns on the same phrase, head of state, but one puns on just the word head and the other puns on head of (presenting it as head off)? Am I missing something? It's fine for them to both be there, but I can understand how someone may feel that they are too close.
Nope, they're quite different.
Mary, head of state. - Mary, and the head that is the property of the state following her execution.
Mary, head off state. - Mary, and the state (country) that removes people's heads, and/or, - Mary is in a head-off state (i.e., she has no head, it's off).
Technically Koli's would be better written as Mary, head-off state. so it's more obvious.
Mary, head of state. - Mary, and the head that is the property of the state following her execution.
Mary, head off state. - Mary, and the state (country) that removes people's heads, and/or, - Mary is in a head-off state (i.e., she has no head, it's off).
Technically Koli's would be better written as Mary, head-off state. so it's more obvious.
They're still similar, but yes, they're more different than I thought. I hadn't thought of Mary as being in a head-off condition. I don't agree, though, that Mary's head becomes the property of the state. Another thing is that Mary was not the head of any state, so technically they are just puns on the random phrase head of state, rather than Mary being that.
I don't agree, though, that Mary's head becomes the property of the state.
I think it does. Back in those days when the state chopped someone's head off, they did whatever they liked with it, e.g., impaled it on a spike on the castle wall etc. So I'd argue that the state was the owner of the head, i.e., the head was the "head of the State".
I'm not on a witchhunt, and don't care who reported it. But, whoever reported that review as a dupe did in fact get it wrong as it's clear on a second glance that it's meaning is totally different from the other and that it is not a dupe.
I wouldn't have reported this, but I think it was a valid position for someone to want to do so. They are not totally different, as far as I can tell. Aren't they both just puns on the same phrase, head of state, but one puns on just the word head and the other puns on head of (presenting it as head off)? Am I missing something? It's fine for them to both be there, but I can understand how someone may feel that they are too close.
I'm not on a witchhunt, and don't care who reported it. But, whoever reported that review as a dupe did in fact get it wrong as it's clear on a second glance that it's meaning is totally different from the other and that it is not a dupe.
I wouldn't have reported this, but I think it was a valid position for someone to want to do so. They are not totally different, as far as I can tell. Aren't they both just puns on the same phrase, head of state, but one puns on just the word head and the other puns on head of (presenting it as head off)? Am I missing something? It's fine for them to both be there, but I can understand how someone may feel that they are too close.
I don't agree, though, that Mary's head becomes the property of the state.
I think it does. Back in those days when the state chopped someone's head off, they did whatever they liked with it, e.g., impaled it on a spike on the castle wall etc. So I'd argue that the state was the owner of the head, i.e., the head was the "head of the State".
Hhmmm, still not convinced, but given that the review just has "of", rather than the more legal "owned by", I guess it's all right.
A Christmas Travesty
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 10:32:10
