I don’t use webthings that include photo filters, but I’ve seen the results, so I’m willing to believe that they can be used to morph her original picture into that horrific result. And I think I get the #NoFilter tag joke–there’s ONE filter she’s not using. But the progression of images doesn’t seem to support that: if the last one was lacking the flowers, then it would make sense.

Or am I missing something else??


  1. i think she means “no filter” meaning not one filter, the loop hole is you can use “many filters.” Either way, it makes no sense.

  2. Philip has it.

    She’s interpreting it as “no one filter” as distinct from “no filters at all“.

  3. She’s claiming “I didn’t use a filter to make this image”, counting on people to assume that this means that no filters were used (a mistake only possible for someone unfamiliar with filters that are available and in wide use. But she isn’t actually claiming that she hasn’t used any filters to construct the image. Technically. Mr. Amend went to university and earned a degree in physics, but clearly his character is channelling the law degree he never had a chance to pursue. I can make this assessment because I have a useless law degree, in the sense that I am not and have never been a licensed attorney.

  4. A man without eyes saw plumbs on a tree. He neither took plumbs nor left plumbs, how can that be?

    He is one eyed (without eyeS) and saw two plumbs on a tree. He took 1 plumb. Therefore, he neither took plumbS (since he took 1, he didn’t take plumbs) nor left plumbs.

    As others said, she uses filterS, not filter.

  5. It’s basically that joke from the Simpsons. The other kids won’t let young Homer join the “NoHomers” club.
    “But you let in Homer Glumpet!”
    “It says ‘No HomerS.’ We’re allowed one.”

  6. Ha! Sure.. why not. Works just as well with either plum or plumbs. Yeah.. dum (sorry, ran out of “b” on my keyboard) typing error. I had plumbing on my mind.

  7. I’ll have to admit I didn’t understand the cartoon at all until reading these comments. The problem was I mistook the layout of six pictures for her current working library, or the six most recent shots in her camera gallery. Some of them have no filter (or no filters), some seem to have one or more, and one has a tag about filters. So which shot is she talking about?

    But you’ve clarified that this layout is representing the timeline of her work on just one photo, in six stages. Which all seem to be the addition of a filter. Okay, then the basis for discussion with her friend is a little bit clearer.

    Though there still is no really plausible loophole. Singular and plural don’t work that way. But at least we can understand her assertion, even while rejecting it.

  8. Here’s a riddle taken from page 135 of Dorothy Dunnett’s “Queens’ Play” (using pears instead of plums), first in the original French:

    Trois moines passoient,
    Trois poires pendoient,
    Chacun en prist une,
    Et s’en demeura deux.

    And then translated into English:

    Three monks passing,
    Three pears hanging,
    Each picked one,
    And yet two remain.

  9. Mitch, it’s the kind of logic that only makes sense to the person who thinks it up in the first place. Teenagers are prone to this, as are (for some reason), “sovereign citizens”. The kind of people who insist that they can’t be arrested for driving without a license, since they weren’t “driving”, they were “traveling”, which is a Constitutionally-protected right.

  10. First monk: Look at that tree! Three pears!
    Second monk: Yeah, but two of them are scrawny and not ripe at all.
    Third monk: But one of them is fine.
    First monk: If you had a choice, which one would you pick?
    Second monk: I pick THAT one [the good one].
    Third monk: I pick that one too!
    First monk: And that’s my pick as well.
    Second monk: Let’s steal it!
    And so they took it and left the other two.

  11. @ MiB – Well, that works too, but it’s awfully complex. The simple solution is that one of the monks was named “Each” (Chacun).

  12. @Kilby: Well, that’s an unfortunate name. Whenever Chacun is introduced to someone, he is asked “A tu ton goût?”

  13. 😆 Though of course in chacun à son goût the à is for to, not an unaccented a for has. (But it still works, to ask him “Have you gotten your preference?”.)

  14. There probably aren’t that many monks named “Chacun” but there have to be at least a few cadets named “Rousselle” who keep having to answer the question “Where are your trois gateaux?”

  15. What would you think if you had told your child “You may not have a cupcake before dinner” and they ate two while you weren’t looking then when confronted, responded “But I didn’t have A cupcake, I had two!”? Valid loophole?

  16. @ MiB – The reference to “Cadet Rousselle” sent me down a medium-sized rabbit hole. I discovered that he had a motley and highly improbable collection, including three of each of the following items: cats, clothes, daughters, denarii, dogs, eyes, hats, houses, shoes, and sons, but only one sword, and I couldn’t find “cakes” (“gateaux“) anywhere in the list.

  17. Mitch:
    a) I’m sure that Jason Fox has used that gambit;
    b) isn’t that why there exists grammatically the use of “any”, to clarify this exact situation, as in, “You may not have any cupcakes before dinner”? (“Well, I didn’t have any cupcakes, I only had one cupcake” doesn’t seem to me like a valid loophole because “any” encompasses the singular, too, so to argue that the prohibition should have included both,” you may not have any cupcake or any cupcakes” seems to be trying to remove semantic information that is implicit in language understanding, trying to artificially create a concept of “any cupcake” that is different from “any cupcakes” — intuitively, we all know that that is not how our language works. Some philosophers might try and create such a distinction, but that is why philosophers are incomprehensible to most people.
    (Now, you might argue that claiming two cupcakes is different from the one cupcake that was prohibited in your example is doing a similar non-intuitive philosophical semantic thing, and you may be right. I only point out that the existence of the grammatical “any” seems to indicate that probably most people do see a difference between a prohibition on one versus many, such that “any” exists to clarify.
    (Certainly the reverse is more intuitively obvious: “you may not have multiple wives” does not prohibit you from having one wife, whereas “you may not have any wives” does.)

  18. How would a parallel case be handled in an actual legal contract, or in a business memo of agreement.?

  19. Lawyers love useless redundancy, and tend to have a hoarder mentality, never throwing anything out by synthesizing and reducing, instead, they just keep it all in: “Cease and desist”, “give, devise, and bequeath”, “indemnify and hold harmless”. So I’m sure that if you pointed out that some Jason Fox somewhere might try this gambit, they’d be more than happy to put both “you may not have any cookie” and “you may not have any cookies” into the document, along with “you may have no cookies” and “you may have no cookie”, and “none is the number of cookies you may have” — the longer the document, the more billable hours!

    (“Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.”)

  20. @ Whitey – “… 22 comments and the hairsplitters beat the sidesplitters…
    And in which category does the 23rd comment belong? 🙂

  21. On the cupcakes, I have always been a literalist which has served me well as a computer programmer, because computers are also literalists. With computers we always clearly distinguish XOR (you may have cupcakes or pie for dessert but not both) from OR (you may have cupcakes or pie for dessert). Can I help it if Mom doesn’t know how to say exactly what she means?

    For Cadet Rousselle, here is how I learned it in French class in fifth grade:

    Cadet Rousselle a trois gâteaux
    Cadet Rousselle a trois gâteaux
    Un grand et deux petit gâteaux
    Un grand et deux petit gâteaux
    Le grand gâteau es chocolat
    C’est pour maman, c’est pour papa.
    Ah! Ah! Ah oui vraiment!
    Cadet Rousselle est bon enfant.

    Cadet Rousselle a trois gâteaux
    Cadet Rousselle a trois gâteaux
    Un grand et deux petit gâteaux
    Un grand et deux petit gâteaux
    Un p’tit moka est pour s’amie.
    L’autre moka c’est bien pour lui.
    Ah! Ah! Ah oui vraiment!
    Cadet Rousselle est bon enfant.

  22. Regarding lawyers’ use of redundancies, I was listening to a lecture about how the modern English language came about. Legal documents were in Latin at one time. People in Britain before 1066 spoke dialects of Old English, Saxon, etc. The Normans set up Parliament which did business in French for a few hundred years until English took over. According to the lecturer, it became common in setting up a legal formula to use words derived from Latin, French and pre-modern English to make sure it everyone would understand at least part of it. Thus love (English), honor (French) and cherish (Latin) in the wedding vows in the Book of Common Prayer.

  23. @ MiB – Even when searching with Wikipedia(FR) and google.fr/ncr, I still was not able to find a single instance of “Cadet Rousselle a trois gâteaux…“. It seems possible that your teacher (or the author of the textbook) may have altered the lyrics to work in specific vocabulary terms.

  24. Kilby: I was in Catholic school, and the French textbook did have a lot of Catholic stuff in it, making sure we knew how to say the Our Father and Hail Mary in French, so a lot of lyrics may have been altered. The original Cadet Rousselle was a satire about a certain French official and maybe the textbook author didn’t want us making fun of someone who being a French official probably was a good Catholic.

  25. I apparently never learned that rhyme, so my thought regarding Cadet Rousselle was “deux medicins”.

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.