assuming that readers would be familiar with the previously popular quotation. Sure, writers sometimes make faux pas as such, but I more often give benefit of the doubt to their writing actually what they meant to say. If there was a poor choice of words in his quote it was the word "also", toward the end. That single word thrusts the last sentence into potential discontinuous ambiguity separating the intents of the two final sentences, presenting them as two in a series and not the same thing being said twice but in two different ways as directly juxtaposed metaphor.
In other words, by saying...
"remember that you catch more flies with sugar than honey [with honey than vinegar]"
...the author is not simply reminding his readers to be polite and such. What the author is doing is telling the readers to...
"Reframe the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue, not a partisan one"
The writer is using the "catch more flies with sugar than honey" as direct analogy for "Reframing the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue...". The author has refined the old quotation into something new and used it to up the ante.
I'll go the second step and explain the analogy...
One could look at it as "sugar" is even sweeter than "honey", and that would suffice to somewhat understand it, but it works even better more specifically. "Sugar" is a general term. It represents the essence of sweetness. That which makes honey sweet is its sugar. That which makes jelly sweet is its sugar. Some people like honey. Some people like jelly. "Jelly or honey" is a partisan issue, but both parties like the sugar. "Sugar" is not partisan. No matter who your representative is, with what political party he/she is affiliated, what their stance on the drug war may be, etcetera, frame your concern that you express to your representative ---> as a human rights issue. That's the sweetest thing you can do! i.e. Do it for the children! They will trip over each other competing to show that they are the most concerned!
Lucia missed all that as she simply chalked the wordplay up to the other author's being a dumb-ass.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may co