Urulókë wrote:
Stu wrote:
Urulókë wrote:
I don't understand where you think I am being disingenuous. When a prior comment said their books are printed on toilet paper, how is that not calling the product toilet paper? In the "commonly used phrase" you refer to, people mean tearing pages out of books to use as toilet paper. No one is talking about using the binding materials.
The comparison to toilet paper is based on toilet paper being the cheapest paper you can buy - it is NOT based on people tearing out the pages to use as toilet paper.
That's why saying the book is toilet paper (which can be used as you say) != the book is printed on toilet paper.
That's why I say what you are saying is disingenous. You are willfully conflating two different things to make a point (or so I believe).
If a book was printed on banana leaves, and I said that's a banana leaf book, those are the same thing.
You don't get to call a book printed on toilet paper and not expect people to connect the product to the material used.
If you can show me a printer's catalog of available stock that contains "toilet paper" as an option, I will concede your point. Otherwise, it is meant as an insult, and not conducive towards having a constructive discussion about book quality.
You are wrong for obvious reasons, but I'm not willing to argue the point any further. It is saying the quality of the paper is very low - nothing more, nothing less. Anyway, I'm out of this discussion as it seems to be fruitless.
Why are you arguing this, Urulókë? Your toilet paper statements, here, are the definition of disingenous. Everyone including you knows what Stu (or anyone else using this language) means. You're just arguing for no reason. It's embarrassing.
Stu wrote:
You are wrong for obvious reasons, but I'm not willing to argue the point any further. It is saying the quality of the paper is very low - nothing more, nothing less. Anyway, I'm out of this discussion as it seems to be fruitless.
So say the quality is very low. There's no need to be insulting (to the publisher, or to me).
Khamûl wrote:
Why are you arguing this, Urulókë? Your toilet paper statements, here, are the definition of disingenous. Everyone including you knows what Stu (or anyone else using this language) means. You're just arguing for no reason. It's embarrassing.
I'm not embarrassed. You both are bending over backwards to say "a book is printed on toilet paper" is not insulting. You use that phrase because it's meant to be insulting. You don't like the paper quality, fine. My point is that you are not going to get anything improved by using insulting language, that's all I am saying. I'm not trying to argue the fine point if the phrase literally means using the book as toilet paper. I don't mean that and don't think you mean that literally either. The implication that it could be used for that is 100% what the phrase means, and the phrase is meant to be degrading/insulting. I'm banning the use of "toilet paper" as a paper quality descriptor on the site moving forward.