Miscellaneous desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

In what episodes of the Doris Day Show does Doris Day wear this outfit?

In what episodes of the Doris Day Show does Doris Day wear this outfit? :

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e2/77/15/e2771587130187a704e064694fdccb04.jpg

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a standard kind of publicity shot. Are you aware of any episode in which she wore this outfit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on so many levels

People say "Such-and-such is wrong on so many levels", but they never go on to specify which levels.

Just what are these "levels" of which there are apparently too many to list? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the superficial level, the deeper level, and then the very deep level of wrongness, which is just too terrible to speak of. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The loge, the mezzanine, the terrace, etc. Like Jack, I've heard this a lot in recent times and wonder where it comes from. One possibility is the levels associated with Dante's Inferno. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or could it be Freemasonry? There are 33 degrees of initiation. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure Freemasonry's minutia are part of the collective culture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've not heard of "the third degree", then? 80.44.161.39 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's 3 degrees, not 33. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack has apparently never heard of idiom, hyperbole or metaphor. --Jayron 32 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you take the example of Trump saying he grabbed women by the crotch and that they don't say anything because he is a star, we can list some of the levels:

1) Actually doing so constitutes sexual assault. Legally wrong.

2) The sense that he is entitled to such "perks" for being a "star" demonstrates that he is an egomaniac (common usage, not technical usage) with a sense of entitlement, which many consider morally wrong.

3) His own defense, despite the claims of many of the women and witnesses, seems to be that he was lying and never did that. So, either he was lying then or is lying now. Lying is also wrong, on an ethics level.

But people will also misuse that saying, and use it when there is only one level. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not as badly as they misuse the word "literally". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Dimensions, Hierarchies, and Levels has this information.

To define a usable level, you must define the following, at a minimum:

A dimension
A hierarchy in that dimension
A level in that hierarchy

—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for accommodating my slightly non-serious question. Next time I hear someone say this within my earshot, I'm going to challenge them and demand to know details of all the levels of wrongness. If the USA votes the wrong way(*), for example, I'm sure I'll be told it's "wrong on so many levels", so they'd better be prepared for me and my steel-trap mind, is all I can say. (* whatever that means) Happy voting, Merkins. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs can correct me on this, but didn't Foghorn Leghorn say "His mind was like steel trap ... full of mice." ? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is on this list StuRat. The wording is a bit different. Unfortunately, they don't mention which toon it is from. MarnetteD|Talk 22:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's at about the 25 second mark of this collection: [1]←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Blasphemous, treasonist, illegal, civil wrong (tort), immoral, unethical and untraditional.
Sleigh (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unrespectful~~Disrespectful, vulgar, rude, too informal, against social mores and against customs.
Sleigh (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal, immoral, fattening. (As per W.C. Fields) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think when people say this, what they usually have in mind is that (a) the statement is literally false; (b) the assumptions underlying it are wrong; and (c) the implications intended to be drawn from it are wrong. Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of this is "If man descended from apes, why do we still have apes ?". This is wrong on all 3 levels:

1) Man did not descend from apes (and it's clear from the statement that they meant existing non-human apes). Rather both descended from a common ancestor, many species back.

2) There's an underlying assumption that whenever a new species evolves, the original must go extinct. If this were true, and there was only one species to begin with, then there would still be only one species, by reductio ad absurdum. The reality is that, if a new species occupies a different ecological niche, both may coexist.

3) The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that we must have been created by God, but this is completely unsupported by the statement. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you equate God to Nature, point 3 works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you classify the common ancestor as part of the ape family, then point 1 works as well. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primates, actually. But the average creationist is too ignorant to understand the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apes are part of the primate order, so these things are not mutually exclusive! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that man (the species) is (still) an ape, so the premise is wrong in distinguishing the two. The splitting of the human and chimpanzee lines began at most around 9 million years ago, and is a small detail within the much wider and longer evolutionary history of the apes [>20m years] (or primates [>79m years]) in general – it is no more logical to define man as "not an ape" that it is to define, say, the gorilla as "not an ape." (Apologies for digressing somewhat from the main point.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 90.211.130.104 (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this at all. Man is a species (homo sapiens). Apes are a species. Apes and man do not interbreed. Therefore they are separate species. Therefore men are not apes. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ape is not a species, it's a "superfamiy" called Hominoidea. There are 7 species in this group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even wrong is also relevant, I think.--Federico1984 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]