h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In my book the "bleeding obvious" is anything that follows from definition.

Everything else is not "obvious".

Would you agree?

I might be being stupid here, but I don't understand the question.

Standing beside front door with coat and hat...

"you going out?"

That's the bleedin' obvious.

No love I'm coming in

What is not obvious is surely reliant on the point of view, conscious knowledge and contextual awareness of the individual? It's not an absolute. There are, however, absolute obviousnesses. Such as 'Do you dye your hair?' when one's hair is clearly an unnatural shade of green or pink. Unless the observer is colour blind but in my experience, this is not the case. It's usually a person asking a stupid question with an obvious answer.

It says more about the person using the phrase than the person it's aimed at.

"In my book the "bleeding obvious" is anything that follows from definition" [Stone Art]

What I think you're saying is that someone who is bleeding can't hide the fact [until a bandage is applied], so the blood is obvious. If you don't happen to bleeding, your condition is much less obvious.

Did I get that right?

Paulh,
Your sense of humour is very dry sometimes.

And other times I'm not sure if your kidding.

Either way, your postings always stimulate thought.

I must say, for the sake of any Americans who may not know,
the term bleeding is a British expression of questionable taste
stemming from a religious reference to the wounds of Christ.
An earlier term was 'swounds' which was a contraction of
God's wounds, a holy incantation corrupted into profanity.

Once considered very blasphemous and sacrilegious and even
banned on some web sites it is still considered too profane for
most social situations, but in the main it has become quite as
casual as heck in what the heck.

Combining the two as in bloody heck is still marginally yikesable.
Here the word bloody is an adjective, as it is in bloody obvious.
And is effectively impotent of any real meaning. Not unlike the
in '-ing awful' or '-ing right'
where has lost all meaningful sexual connotation.


~jwf~

#5 "There are, however, absolute obviousnesses. Such as 'Do you dye your hair?' when one's hair is clearly an unnatural shade of green or pink. Unless the observer is colour blind but in my experience, this is not the case. It's usually a person asking a stupid question with an obvious answer."

What me dye my hair? you're having a laugh!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=pink+wigs&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=6494040009&ref=pd_sl_7evsc00oh3_b

Ah, now if ones wig is an unnatural shade of pink or green I suspect it has probably been dyed too, somewhere along the line.

#7 "What I think you're saying is that someone who is bleeding can't hide the fact [until a bandage is applied], so the blood is obvious. If you don't happen to bleeding, your condition is much less obvious.

Did I get that right?"

No. That's still not bleeding obvious. It was a fake wound with fake blood - and o' look it's Halloween

#8 thanks for the etymology of that particular use of "bleeding". I took it from a phrase used by someone on the dwarkins thread, someone from your neck of the woods I believe. I suppose "doubting Thomas" and "bleedy obvious" have similar origins --> religious origins? Now that would be ironic.

I think the 'bleeding obvious' is what results from keeping a 600pound Gorilla and an elephant quietly in the same room.

alec.

#10 "Ah, now if ones wig is an unnatural shade of pink or green I suspect it has probably been dyed too, somewhere along the line."

Now that would be obvious by definition.

Everything in the dictionary is obvious by definition.

Mathematics is the only topic where you may have to think for half an hour before deciding something is obvious.

I suppose anything, once proved (or, proven) or established
and accepted as a matter of fact, could be said to be obvious.
The Latin terms 'de facto' and 'ipso facto' cover it nicely
if not as precisely as the English colloquialism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ipso+facto

~jwf~

#15&16 Dictionaries and maths - very good. I can agree with all that

Socrates through the pen of Plato, had a few comments on knowledge expressed in the form of criticism towards the "teachers" or "know-alls" of his day (the Sophists). My point is what is often assumed to be obvious might not be, and often isn't.

Doubting Thomas comes straight out of The Bible.

He was the apostle, lone amongst the remaining 10, who didn't believe Jesus had come back from the dead. Following the execution, in one of several hushed gatherings the remaining devotees are surprised when Jesus magically appears before them - it is pointed out he can apperate like Harry Potter or teleport like Nightcrawler but however he does it he does it - Bamf! - There he is.

Thomas is called forward and allowed to stick his fingers in the wounds to see for himself if this really is the Jesus who was crucified. Thomas then professes his rededication to Jesus All the while Jesus chides him for needing silly things like "evidence" and for not being able to believe like the others*. For this, quite reasonable fit of sceptical behaviour, "Doubting" Thomas has gone down in infamy as the apostle who just wasn't quite with the programme.




It's in the Gospel of John 20: 24-29.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A24-29&version=NIV

It is a bone of contention amongst sceptics and empiricists to this day that we don't get to stick our fingers in the squishy bits but are told we must believe on far less substantial basis of 'faith' aka: the believe somethign without evidence) or as Jesus himself allegedly put it 'believe without seeing'.



*And I've always hated this passage for that reason.

"I've always hated this passage for that reason."

To the contrary, I love it. It's the passage that, above almost all others, allows one to dismiss Christianity without further discussion.