Boxerworks.com

Zombie Master wrote:Why are you using an Airhead to customize? These bikes are designed by Germans for function, therefore have cylinders that stick out in an awkward style. At best, the Airhead is elegant, but never gorgeous. I have seen many attempts at customizing these bikes, most fail miserably and drastically discount the values of the machine. These are of course my opinions.

+1

+2!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, yeah....

r90s wrote:Yeah, yeah....

Well said...!

r90s wrote:Yeah, yeah....

The exception proves the rule. Very nice.

r90s wrote:Yeah, yeah....

More photos please. That is sex on 2 wheels.

That does look awfully nice.
But does it 'need' those towel rails?
And what rear tyre is that?

Zombie Master wrote:The exception proves the rule. Very nice.

I believe the exception proves the rule . . . is bogus.

Major Softie wrote:I believe the exception proves the rule . . . is bogus.

Not necessarily I think. Usually the term "prove" is meant and taken as meaning to affirm the truth of (my words, not necessarily what you would find in a dictionary). But there is another, lesser used, meaning something like "to test" or perhaps "put to the test". I'm thinking that the common phrase "prove the rule" uses the latter meaning for the word.

So an exception to a commonly believed "truth", would indeed test that truth, i.e. prove the rule.

Now, whether that's what ZM meant when he wrote what he wrote is whole other question. But he's not above a bit of rabble rousing, even if he has to use a word correctly to do it.


Ken

Ken in Oklahoma wrote:Not necessarily I think. Usually the term "prove" is meant and taken as meaning to affirm the truth of (my words, not necessarily what you would find in a dictionary). But there is another, lesser used, meaning something like "to test" or perhaps "put to the test". I'm thinking that the common phrase "prove the rule" uses the latter meaning for the word.

So an exception to a commonly believed "truth", would indeed test that truth, i.e. prove the rule.

Ken

Hmm, interesting possibility, but I'm not sure I buy it. A "proof" must succeed in proving the rule, mustn't it? If it proves the rule false, I do not believe it is still called a proof; I think it becomes something else, but I'm certain that the "rule" no longer remains a rule.

If it proves the rule is false, has it "proved the rule?" I think not . . . but I'm not sure.