| Author |
Message |
Rifleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:33 am
Post subject: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence easier
for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop. Good
enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the others was his
job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter??? Do you
need more context?
Thanks,
Rifleman
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:54 am
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:33:27 +0900, "Rifleman"
<tellmewhatever@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence easier
for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop. Good
enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the others was his
job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter??? Do you
need more context?
|
You haven't explained much about the book, but it sounds like an
espionage thriller. "Spook" is usually a term for a spy. Probably, a
"shooter" is a spy that does "wet work": assassination.
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:36 am
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
Rifleman wrote:
| Quote: | Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence
easier for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop.
Good enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the
others was his job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought
to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter???
Do you need more context?
|
"It takes one to know one" is a set phrase which is most often used as an
insult. "You know, I think you might just be a wino!" "Well it takes one to
know one!" That is, the second person is simply returning the insult.
The expression itself, however, probably arose out of the fact that someone
who is in a given profession or group often can tell if another person is
part of the same group by clues which the average person would ignore or
misinterpret. A cowboy, for example, should be able to tell if another
person is a real cowboy and not just pretending to be one. In the passage
you quote, this appears to be what is going on: The person who is looking
for a "shooter" (whatever that may be in this context, see Tony's
speculation) is himself a shooter, and as a result thinks he should be able
to spot the person he is looking for.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rifleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:42 am
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rrnvj012t8mntbf30ng0khc0ecg7p30825@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:33:27 +0900, "Rifleman"
tellmewhatever@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence easier
for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop.
Good
enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the others was
his
job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter??? Do
you
need more context?
You haven't explained much about the book, but it sounds like an
espionage thriller. "Spook" is usually a term for a spy. Probably, a
"shooter" is a spy that does "wet work": assassination.
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
|
Sorry that I didn't tell you about the book yet but you just insulted Tom
Clancy. I don't know much about him and if he's really such a potboiler but
at least I agree that he has some grammatical problem in wrting so that it
makes me confused sometimes. Ah, by the way, the book title is Tom Clancy's
Net Force published lately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:23 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
Rifleman wrote:
| Quote: | "Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rrnvj012t8mntbf30ng0khc0ecg7p30825@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:33:27 +0900, "Rifleman"
tellmewhatever@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence
easier for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook
shop. Good enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting
the others was his job - if it took one to know one, he certainly
ought to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter???
Do you need more context?
You haven't explained much about the book, but it sounds like an
espionage thriller. "Spook" is usually a term for a spy. Probably,
a "shooter" is a spy that does "wet work": assassination.
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
Sorry that I didn't tell you about the book yet but you just insulted
Tom Clancy. I don't know much about him and if he's really such a
potboiler but at least I agree that he has some grammatical problem
in wrting so that it makes me confused sometimes. Ah, by the way, the
book title is Tom Clancy's Net Force published lately.
|
I think Tom Clancy is beyond insulting by now. He's taken the phrase "It
takes one to know one" and put it into the subjunctive for reasons best
known to himself. "It takes one to know one" is an all-purpose phrase,
often used as an insult. Like the aftermath of an accident "You're a
hopeless driver" "Takes one to know one".
Here it seems 'he' is a 'shooter' and is looking to identify another of
his kind.
Cinderella, she seems so easy
"It takes one to know one," she smiles
And puts her hands in her back pockets
Bette Davis style
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:06 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:54:27 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
|
The reference is to a cooking pot.
From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable
<quote>
Pot Boiler. Anything done merely for the sake of the money it will bring in,
because it will keep the 'pot boiling', i.e. help to provide the means of
livelihood. The word is applied especially to works of small merit by
artists and writers, and is sometimes misapplied to apply to a fictional
domestic narrative.
</quote>
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:58 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:06:08 +0100, Peter Duncanson
<mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:54:27 -0400, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
The reference is to a cooking pot.
From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable
quote
Pot Boiler. Anything done merely for the sake of the money it will bring in,
because it will keep the 'pot boiling', i.e. help to provide the means of
livelihood. The word is applied especially to works of small merit by
artists and writers, and is sometimes misapplied to apply to a fictional
domestic narrative.
/quote
|
That certainly describes Clancy's writing (or the books published that
list Clancy as the writer) of late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:02 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:42:07 +0900, "Rifleman"
<tellmewhatever@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rrnvj012t8mntbf30ng0khc0ecg7p30825@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:33:27 +0900, "Rifleman"
tellmewhatever@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence easier
for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop.
Good
enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the others was
his
job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter??? Do
you
need more context?
You haven't explained much about the book, but it sounds like an
espionage thriller. "Spook" is usually a term for a spy. Probably, a
"shooter" is a spy that does "wet work": assassination.
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
Sorry that I didn't tell you about the book yet but you just insulted Tom
Clancy. I don't know much about him and if he's really such a potboiler but
at least I agree that he has some grammatical problem in wrting so that it
makes me confused sometimes. Ah, by the way, the book title is Tom Clancy's
Net Force published lately.
Clancy would not be offended by my insult. Considering his recent |
books, I'm sure I'm not the first to call them "pot boilers"
Now that you've revealed the author's name, it seems that my guess
about the nature of the book was correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rifleman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:13 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:VJOdnfoPM86FcaLcRVn-vw@gbronline.com...
| Quote: | Rifleman wrote:
Another paragraph that just confused me and make the last sentence
easier for me pleeeeese.
"~ as good as you were going to find outside of a serious spook shop.
Good enough to track and define most honest poeple. Spotting the
others was his job - if it took one to know one, he certainly ought
to know a shooter."
If it took one to know one, he certainly ought to know a shooter???
Do you need more context?
"It takes one to know one" is a set phrase which is most often used as an
insult. "You know, I think you might just be a wino!" "Well it takes one
to
know one!" That is, the second person is simply returning the insult.
The expression itself, however, probably arose out of the fact that
someone
who is in a given profession or group often can tell if another person is
part of the same group by clues which the average person would ignore or
misinterpret. A cowboy, for example, should be able to tell if another
person is a real cowboy and not just pretending to be one. In the passage
you quote, this appears to be what is going on: The person who is looking
for a "shooter" (whatever that may be in this context, see Tony's
speculation) is himself a shooter, and as a result thinks he should be
able
to spot the person he is looking for.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
Thanks guys and now I see what it means. Had I known it's a sort of saying
similiar to 'it takes a widow to know a widow's difficulties'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:06:08 +0100 Peter
Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> posted:
| Quote: | On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:54:27 -0400, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The book sounds like a "pot boiler". I have no idea of the origin of
that phrase, but it describes a book provides plenty of action but a
bit short on good writing.
The reference is to a cooking pot.
From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable
quote
Pot Boiler. Anything done merely for the sake of the money it will bring in,
because it will keep the 'pot boiling', i.e. help to provide the means of
livelihood. The word is applied especially to works of small merit by
artists and writers, and is sometimes misapplied to apply to a fictional
domestic narrative.
/quote
|
Well, that I totally misunderstood. I thought it had to do with a
story being steamy, and therefore including a bunch of sex.
I believe if one throws a stone or two with corners into a nearly
boiling pot of water it will start the water to boiling. Why one
needs it to boil when it was just as hot before, I do not know, except
that in the absence of thermometer, it's a way to tell how hot it is,
except that assumes it could be superheated.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:31 pm
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
meirman wrote:
| Quote: |
I believe if one throws a stone or two with corners into a nearly
boiling pot of water it will start the water to boiling. Why one
needs it to boil when it was just as hot before, I do not know, except
that in the absence of thermometer, it's a way to tell how hot it is,
except that assumes it could be superheated.
Like crystals in a way, bubbles form most readily in the presence of |
an 'initiator' around which they can nucleate. This can be a scratch
in the pot, a bit of dust, or anything with a porous or irregular
surface. In my chemistry lab courses we put "boiling stones" in a
flask before heating it, to anticipate its boiling over: the early
formation of streams of fine bubbles would prevent a sudden eruption
of large bubbles from superheated gas. I don't know what the boiling
stones were made of, but I'd guess either some kind of ceramic or a
pumice-like, porous rock.
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:20 am
Post subject: Re: If it took one to know one ~ |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:31:17 GMT Odysseus
<odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> posted:
| Quote: | meirman wrote:
I believe if one throws a stone or two with corners into a nearly
boiling pot of water it will start the water to boiling. Why one
needs it to boil when it was just as hot before, I do not know, except
that in the absence of thermometer, it's a way to tell how hot it is,
except that assumes it could be superheated.
Like crystals in a way, bubbles form most readily in the presence of
an 'initiator' around which they can nucleate. This can be a scratch
in the pot, a bit of dust, or anything with a porous or irregular
surface. In my chemistry lab courses we put "boiling stones" in a
flask before heating it, to anticipate its boiling over: the early
formation of streams of fine bubbles would prevent a sudden eruption
of large bubbles from superheated gas. I don't know what the boiling
stones were made of, but I'd guess either some kind of ceramic or a
pumice-like, porous rock.
|
So, if wasn't obvious before, this could be the origin of the term
pot-boiler.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in