From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:08:02 GMT

Kevvy Kev says:
> In article <1992Sep11.175441.29885@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
> > 
> > Kevin says:
> 
> [snip]
>  
> > > 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."
> 
> Without watching you when you say this, I don't know what you mean.  Try again.

No comment.

[....]
> > 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."
> 
> I grew up with an English major, and went through one myself, by way of

That must have hurt.

> Chemistry (!).  You can leave the "inexact" out of your above statement, and

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

> it is equally true.

Then you apparently agree.

> > > 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.  
> 
> No, no, no.  No.  That is NOT a correct statement.  If a person says the
> phrase "socialist/democrats" or "yuppie/liberals" or "tackhead/drones," that
> person IS equating the two.  Whether they meant to or not.  Get it?
> The real question is, "did he mean to?"  Of course none of us Know. . .but
> given the tone of the rest of his remarks, I'd say so.  Wouldn't bet money
> on it, but his message reads like that.  Note that he hasn't jumped in here

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.  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.  I mean, what's to gain?
> yet.  Which I guess makes us two of the more hopeless dweebs on the continent.


Guess so.  Anyway, this is the point.  I understand your definition of
the use of the /.  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.  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.  So your definition or intended use is just
one, and not the sole use.  That's why I give the original poster slack.

In other words, if I say "man/woman", they are interchangeable
in the Particular Sense that I'm discussing in the statement.
It does NOT mean that they are identical, nor does it mean
that they are interchangeable in all ways.  For example, I don't
say a doorknob and a chicken are the same.  But if I only had these
two things in a sack, I might say, "So, let's say I hand you the
doorknob/chicken, and then you throw it at the bandwidth-wasting
geek/posters!"  Another example is, "The only people that would be
in that underwater cave are Navy Seals or psychopaths.  And I wouldn't
want to be in that Navy Seal/psychopath's shoes/flippers!"  Clearer?
> 
> > And I'm not making any assumption.
> > The point is that the poster has not explicitly said that he/she meant

Was really hoping you'd catch that he/she reference without my pointing
it out.

> > 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.
> 
> 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.

>  
> > > > 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.  
> 
> Then why say "this thread should be sent away?" Yeesh.

Shame, Kev.  I'm patronizing the people who feel compelled to complain
about long threads.  Just trying to be nice.

[....]
> > > 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.
> 
> Then why say, Kill the thread?  Yeash.

Obviously because not everyone in the world agrees with me, and sometimes
I'd rather surrender my own enjoyment if I'm pissing someone else off.
Then again, sometimes I'd rather not.  After all, here I am again.
And who knows, maybe a movie will be made of this thread, and then
we'll have been vindicated.

> 
> Kevvy Kev
> "The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets."
>  -Some Guy

I like it.

GMS
"Everybody talks about everybody talking about the weather, but
nobody ever does anything about nobody doing anything about it."
- Me
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies