"No one" means "no single story alone". Multiple stories together could be complete.
Is this an Americanism?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
Didn't I just explain that before, along with Josh? Are you trying in desperation to prove me wrong? It could mean that or in a general sense talking about all books ever made.
The people who call themselves guest need to start naming themselves.
The people who call themselves guest need to start naming themselves.
No, you ppl with names should give up idolizing your ego. Pathetic vanity, source of all conflict.
Well, at least it would prove you're not trying to be annoying.
In a nutshell: It's a highly ambiguous term that shouldn't be used. "No one" emphasises the individual whereas "not one" doesn't.
In a nutshell: It's a highly ambiguous term that shouldn't be used. "No one" emphasises the individual whereas "not one" doesn't.
"No one story is ever complete" is the same as saying 'No story is ever complete' and then adding another modifier to 'story'
--"No *one* (i.e. single) story is ever complete"
cf.
"No *individual* story is ever complete"
"No *unique* story is ever complete"
I wouldn't call it an Americanism. It might be heard most often in America, but it's just plain old English (language).
--"No *one* (i.e. single) story is ever complete"
cf.
"No *individual* story is ever complete"
"No *unique* story is ever complete"
I wouldn't call it an Americanism. It might be heard most often in America, but it's just plain old English (language).
"No, you ppl with names should give up idolizing your ego. Pathetic vanity, source of all conflict."
I've seen this kind of comment before and I find it disturbing. Actually anytime I see any psychobabble here, I find it disturbing, unless it's Franco.
I've seen this kind of comment before and I find it disturbing. Actually anytime I see any psychobabble here, I find it disturbing, unless it's Franco.
I suppose that I have an idea that is different from both Mr. McLaren and Josh. Context would be great to have.
<<"No, you ppl with names should give up idolizing your ego. Pathetic vanity, source of all conflict."
I've seen this kind of comment before and I find it disturbing. Actually anytime I see any psychobabble here, I find it disturbing, unless it's Franco.<<
Above is my reason for posting as Guest, besides from it being easier (less typing). It has been my experience that pursuing ones ego leads to conflict. On the other hand if we stay in the domain of ideas there's no place for conflict, only rivalry of thought.
May I ask, what is your reason for posting as Guest?
I've seen this kind of comment before and I find it disturbing. Actually anytime I see any psychobabble here, I find it disturbing, unless it's Franco.<<
Above is my reason for posting as Guest, besides from it being easier (less typing). It has been my experience that pursuing ones ego leads to conflict. On the other hand if we stay in the domain of ideas there's no place for conflict, only rivalry of thought.
May I ask, what is your reason for posting as Guest?
cf.
"No *individual* story is ever complete"
"No *unique* story is ever complete"
Indeed.
"No *individual* story is ever complete"
"No *unique* story is ever complete"
Indeed.
Previous page Pages: 1 2