From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes...
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:41:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.230802.2909@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

[Snip, stuff about clarity]

> No comment.

Heh heh heh.
 
[Snip, babbling about college majors]

> You seem unaware of how common it is for folks to pursue a wide range
> of college majors.

???  GMS leaps a conceptual barrier with a single bound, escaping with mildly
abraded shins and a stubbed toe.
 
> That's the point.  See, many times folks are attacked on the net based on
> some error they've made with their message, as though the goal is not
> to make a point, but to feed someone's ego in reinterpretting the
> original post as stupid.  I think it's more important to find out
> what they meant.  

There is little to no chance of us ever finding out what he meant, at this
point.  All we can do from here on is thrash about, flaunting our excess
of disposable time.

> So, although I get an impression of the "tone" of
> messages too, I don't feel good about getting into any kind of debate
> based on something I can't prove.  

Hahahahahahahahahaha

> Anyway, this is the point.  I understand your definition of
> the use of the /.  

THIS is the point.  It's not "my definition" of the use of "/", it's THE
definition of it. Unless my Manual of Style is mistaken (actually not an
impossibility, with the manuals they give tech writers in the valley.  I
digress). 

> I sent you e-mail ("good one") because I thought
> you weren't being serious about the "I'm right, you're wrong, that's it"
> post.  If you were serious, I would have noted it as a rather
> unusual form of argument.  

And a heaping spoonful of credit to you.  I try not to take any of this
too seriously, hence our discussion about the fine parts of grammar and
usage under the auspices of the above subject heading.  

> However, what I'm saying is that the use
> of the "/" means that the two items are being equated in A Particular
> Characteristic or Aspect.  

Say it all you like, that doesn't make it so.  To read someone's message
and put a different spin on it to support your slant is bad form, as Peter
would say.  "Well, he didn't Mean that, what he Meant to say was. . ." 
*Especially* when the political context of his message go against your
conclusion.

> So your definition or intended use is just
> one, and not the sole use.  That's why I give the original poster slack.

Again: it's not My definition.  I'm just referencing correct punctuation.
You give the original poster slack because you're a nice guy.  But you're
gonna break that fence, sooner or later.

> > Belabor the point department: You Are making an assumption.  You're assuming
> > he meant to use accepted rules of grammar in an illogical and/or incorrect
> > manner.
> 
> This is why I distinguish between assumptions and unwarranted assumptions.
> Assuming a poster intends to use correct English and accepted rules of
> grammar is a workable and useful assumption which I tend to hold until
> the poster indicates otherwise.

???  So what's the problem?
  
> Shame, Kev.  I'm patronizing the people who feel compelled to complain
> about long threads.  Just trying to be nice.

Mea culpa.  Like I said: Enough.  This time I mean it.
(Great movie idea, though.  I'll look into financing.) 

Kevvy Kev
"Thatthatisisthatthatisnotisnotthatthatisnotisnotthatthatis"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:27826 alt.cult-movies:7935