Wullie Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 It's quite a common phrase like. Although he has blatantly taken it from here. Doubt it, seeing as the usual phrase is "rearranging the deckchairs…" and the one on here was the metaphorically-confused "shuffling the deckchairs…". "reshuffle: an act of reorganizing or rearranging something." I'm not having anyone suggest I'm in any way confused about something Lee Ryder isn't. 'Reshuffle' is fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 It's not flat out wrong like 'the proof is in the pudding' grrr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Ryder you fucking knob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 It's not flat out wrong like 'the proof is in the pudding' grrr. What's wrong with that like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the original expression I think (or something like that). That's the bastardised version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the original expression I think (or something like that). That's the bastardised version. I know the origin. I don't think it's wrong per se - the shortened version is superior for today's modern world where we don't have 20 years for grandpa to finish a sentence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 It doesn't make any sense though does it? It's like shortening 'that's opened a can of worms' to 'that's a worm' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 'Someone's let a cat out' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Who in the world said that one way of shorthanding an idiom/proverb/metaphor would apply globally? Answer: no one. Absolutely no one is confused by the meaning of the shorthanded version. The original applied to 14th century puddings where questionable meat standards were as likely to kill you as nourish you. By any first world standard the actual literal meaning is horribly outdated anyway. Language and usage evolves, chillax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Please explain how 'the proof is in the pudding' works then There's no proof in the pudding, the proof is in the eating (ie does it taste good). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 It's not like a Christmas pudding where the coin inside is evidence to a murder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toondave Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Putting your proof in a pudding would be a very inefficient and messy way of being a mathematician Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toondave Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 quick someone check fermats pantry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Heard Descartes used to be an absolute fiend for hiding his workings inside a Flaugnarde, the cheeky bastard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Please explain how 'the proof is in the pudding' works then There's no proof in the pudding, the proof is in the eating (ie does it taste good). uhh uhhh how do you put proof "in" an "eating" durrr durrrr that phrase makes no sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 You're not playing a deck here mind, Thomas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 But anyway the proof is in the action of eating. The important point here is that the shortened phrase states something completely different, lighten the fuck up EDIT: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html A write up of the phrase for all the thrillseekers out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Wouldn't the pudding itself be the proof and the eating the process of checking the proof? The pudding - being good or bad - is proof in itself. But you check the proof of how good it is by eating it, hence the proof is the pudding. Not in the pudding. You're all wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 What have I done. Proof of something through doing actually doing it. In football for instance 'we can stop up, but the only thing that counts is doing it' cue John carver saying 'the proof is in the pudding' moral of the story - don't copy John carver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 "I could care less" is a funny one too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 "I could care less" is a funny one too That one drives me mental Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toondave Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Heard Descartes used to be an absolute fiend for hiding his workings inside a Flaugnarde, the cheeky bastard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Open_C Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Prove, is, in the proof-of-the-pudding expression, used in its original sense of 'test' (see also: proving grounds, proving bread dough). It makes perfect sense read in that context Has somebody already posted that? Couldn't bear to read back[emoji38] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovineblue Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 'Someone's let a cat out' I believe the correct phrase is 'who let the dogs out?' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 For all intensive purposes he's already gone. Wouldn't be surprised to see these last 7 phoned in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts