From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes doing with guns?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:54:41 GMT

Kevin says:
> 
> > >> >>In the second place, the poster did not say socialists and democrats
> > >> >>are the same.
> > >> >
> > >> >I disagree again.  The post said "socialist/democrats" not
> > >> >socialists and/or democrats, and it's my belief that he meant to 
> > >> >equate the two, not list two separate entities.
> 
> > >. . .on the
> > >slash as an abbreviation for "or," this is probably not the poster's intent,
> > >as he doesn't say "socialists/democrats", he says "socialist/democrats." Quite
> > >a difference.
> > 
> > In the first place, note that saying "the poster said" is quite different
> > from saying "I think the poster meant".  One is a statement of fact and
> > the other is an assumption, which seems to be quite in vogue these days.
> 
> Weren't you paying attention?  That's what I Said: "this is probably not the
> poster's intent. . ."  Of course it was an assumption.  What the hell in this
So why would anyone base their point on something they have already said
was only an assumption?  Same answer as to "it hurts when I do this".  "Well,
then, don't do that."

> whole discussion hasn't been?  Or, for that matter, in just about any 
> discussion?  
No, discussions are not always base on unwarranted assumptions.  If you've
been that deprived of logical debate, then enjoy.

> The nature of language is that it has to be interpreted.  The most reasonable
Most reasonable?  Sorry, my mistake.  Wasn't told that that particular one
was The Most Reasonable.  As all right-thinking people must know.  Seriously,
I don't think you'll disagree that the major point is more likely "The
nature of inexact use of language is that it can be misinterpreted."

> interpretation of the phrase "socialist/democrats" is that the person saying
> it is equating the two.  If you interperet something different, then You're
> the one making the assumption, because this is correct usage.
No.  I said that the original poster did not say that he/she was equating
the two, and that is a correct statement.  And I'm not making any assumption.
The point is that the poster has not explicitly said that he/she meant
to equate the two.  Regardless of what "most reasonable people" would
assume, it is still only an assumption, and not sufficient to base an
argument upon.  If the poster says "yes, that's what I meant", then yes,
that can be argued against or for or whatever.
> 
> > Secondly, whatever assumptions one cares to make to support one's
> > preconceived notions, positions or crusades, it is certainly more
> > correct to let the originator of said statement simply tell you
> > what they meant.  
> 
> Oh give me a break.  As if I would let you sharks in on my "preconceived
> notions, positions or crusades."  And as if this guy {yes, the attribution
No can do.  Policy.  Sorry.

> is lost in hopeless mire by now} would honestly clear up the misunderstanding.
Too late.

> Look out, here comes a blatant assumption: The "originator" meant to equate the
Look, I want References!  By Noon!  Or you're history!
> two, when he said "socialist/democrats."  Said assumption based on clues 
> sprinkled throughout the "originator's" messages, high school transcript,
> and blood type.  Supported enough for you?
Don't know what you're talking about.  Sorry.
> 
> > At that point, you can be either right or wrong
> > instead of merely a "good guesser".
> 
> You ignore a third option: that I could be both.  (Smiley omitted, as it 
You can be right or wrong AND "merely a good guesser"?  Most Excellent!

> generally seems too queasy/obsequious).
> 
> > Thirdly, unless this gets back to movies, this thread should probably
> > be sent to another group, enjoyable as it might be.
> 
> Reality check: this thread veered far afield at the outset, when Walter 
And I enjoy it.  Some folks in the past have posted their dissatisfaction
with threads that venture away from pure movie topics, but I figure that
if movie reviewers can do this, why can't we?  This is America, darn it,
and I figure that if we can put a man on the moon...  oops.  Never mind.
Just me sucking up to the whiners out there.  I'm through now.

> decided to vent on topics ranging from women's rights to the treatment of
> Native American Indians to the occluded state of his rectum, in response
> to a simple message about Lee's Malcom X movie.  Methinks you should've
> stepped in there, if it mattered to you.
Sure.  I read the post and thought it was okay.  Every now and then
someone makes a statement that is not 100% movie-related.  I don't mind
at all.  Entertainment as a mirror of society and all that.
> 
> Kevvy Kev
> "Now, I don't generally mind when a movie doesn't go the way I thought it
>  would, but it does bug me when my way is a lot better."
>   -Jan Wolter
> 
> 
"No I don't.  Sorry.  Try the strawberry.  Or a larger caliber.  Hot
enough for you?  Aside from the smell?" - Portrait of the Artist as
a Young Psychotic Netnews Poster

GMSy GMS