From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:30:48 GMT


>|>|> = Al Date
>|>|>...deserved acquittal on what grounds if not moral grounds??

>|>|   = Mike Godwin
>|>| I said nothing about moral grounds.

>>|>    = Tony Davis
>>|>Obviously some people think you did.  Tell us what you really said so that
>>|>we can all play the same game.

>>|     = Mike Godwin
>>|Tony, what I really said is in the passage you quote. 

>>      = Tony Davis
>>No.  The words you wrote are in the passage I quote.  I asked nothing about
>>the words you wrote.  What you said is clearer below.

>       = Mike Godwin
> Maybe it's clearer to you now.

Yes, thank you.  Communication is about exchanging understanding not
exchanging words.

>       = Mike Godwin
> But what I "really said" is identical to what I wrote. 

My point is that in this case and many others that is not possible.  What
you wrote had several possible interpretations.  It is now clear to me that
the interpretation you meant is not the one which the context led me and
others to understand you to be saying.

>>      = Tony Davis
>>Given the now long past context of this discussion, I believe some people
>>have been and still are interpreting 'claims a moral right to nullify' as
>>'takes a moral right to nullify' or 'uses a moral right to nullify'.  With
>>such an interpretation it would be easier to misunderstand what you said.

>       = Mike Godwin
> If in fact they misunderstood what I said, this tends to undercut your
> implicit assertion that I was playing any kind of game with them.

The supposed game is in your response to the misunderstanding.  When
Mr. Date posted what I thought was an obvious indication that he didn't
understand what you meant, you didn't respond with clarification nor even
answer the question he asked.  Effectively you replied `That's not what
I said`.  It seemed to be a deliberately noncommunicative response.
Given your obvious intelligence, facility with words, and previous
helpfulness I didn't know what to think.  Calling it a word game is one
of the more charitable characterizations to give it.  I don't really
think it's a word game, but the appearances are close enough that I
received email agreeing that it seemed that way.

Following up on the misunderstanding helped me clarify a portion of
what I think is a larger problem also illustrated below.  That can be
taken up in email if you like.


>>> Mike Godwin writes:
>>> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
>>> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
>>> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
>>> "people" in the First Amendment.

>> James Warren writes:
>> What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
>> the word "people"?

Obviously Mr. Warren has misunderstood your words.  In this case your words
were clear (or close enough).  In reply you write:

> Mike Godwin replies:
> I didn't say I think any such thing. Is English your first language?

In response to the same post by Mr. Warren, Tim Smith also replies:

> Tim Smith replies:
> Try reading again what Mike wrote.  He said that *IF* the second is not
> an individual right, *THEN* the word "people" has a different meaning.
> How do you get from this that Mike thinks that they have different
> meanings?

My characterization of the two replies:
Mike Godwin:  'That's not what I said.  Are you stupid?'
Tim Smith:    'That's not what he said.  *THIS* is what he said'


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu