From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:31:57 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep27.214638.15941@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.092317.127931@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > In  <1992Sep25.170000.19435@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > >
> > > Left seperated, the egg and sperm will _never_ develop in a child.
> >
> > Left by itself, the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus will *never* develop
> > into a child.  Do you understand yet?  If not, please reread until you do.
>
> Left by itself would be classified as bad interference.

In Gorr-speak; not necessarily in English.

> Also, left seperated is completely different from left by itself.

Left by itself, or left separated from the woman; take your pick.

> > > I am not making up definitions of words to suit my whims...I've thought
> > > about these definitions and argued them over a few years with many people.
> > > They are not new to me.
> >
> > They may not be new *to* you, but they're new *with* you.
>
> And...?

And you *did* make them up to suit you.

> > > In any case, the point of the discussion would be then to show why my
> > > definitions are useless, unclear or not understandable.
> >
> > They're useless because they're not used by anyone but you.  They're unclear
> > because the words you're using have a clearly defined, well known meaning,
> > and you're using them to mean something else.  They're not understandable
> > because when a reader sees "interference", they naturally think of the
> > standard definition of "interference" they will find if they look in a
> > dictionary, and *nobody* in the world except you would think of the
> > "Eric Gorr definition of interference".  Clear?
>
> But they are useful because I can state clearly what they are so that
> everyone can understand what they mean and how I use them.

They may be useful for you, but they are useless for everyone else, and,
in fact, they make it so *nobody* understands what you're trying to say.
Please reread the above paragraph ("They're useless because..."); you
eveidently didn't understand it.

> If someone doesn't understand what I am trying to say and really wants to,
> they are free to ask.  Or, (actually this is a good idea) I could include
> them at the end of each of my messages to solve the problem.  What do you
> think?

I think you should say what you're trying to say, using real words as
they are generally understood.

> In addition, the terms that are familiar to everyone are inadequate for
> what I am attempting to get across.  What do you suggest?

If you really want to make up a new word, then do that - make up a
*new* word.  Please don't attempt to redefine an existing word, as
that only leads to confusion.

(Note that I'm assuming that you're really interested in being understood,
and not *trying* to cause confusion, although nothing you've posted to
date would make this a reasonable assumption.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion