Replicate / Duplicate

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

2 comments on this post.
  1. Malcolm stevens:

    Hi Evan,
    I’ve been subscribing, or something similar, for a few years now and just wanted to say how much I enjoy your stuff. (My contributions have probably paid for about a fortnight’s worth of cat food. Now there’s a good word. Have you done “fortnight”? Probably. Anyway, I can relate and am living with 3 cats, a dog etc and 3 kids and a lovely wife.) I am prompted to “write” by your story of the pig-poop in the ditch episode. I’m sorry, but I have laughed several times now upon the reading and re-reading of your account of this tale. What I admire about you sir is your ability to laugh at yourself in the face of adversity, the nature of which would drive the average modern day wimp into a flurry of self-pity. You’re a good man.
    All the best from Down Under. (Sydney, Australia, to be prezact.)

  2. Theophanous:

    It would have been much more simple, and maybe a little more accurate, if you had connected the meaning of the two terms with, on the one hand, the “presence of the original” (for duplicate), and, on the other hand, the “absence of the original” (for replicate).

    Presence, of course, and absence, may be understood in many different ways, as one might wonder about the distance, for example, which would entitle someone to talk about either “presence” or “absence” of an object; but such observations, I submit, would be in bad faith and would miss the point of the proposed simple solution!

Leave a comment