In <catcherC630J6.87F@netcom.com> catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco) writes:  >As she said, the letter is addressed to Bettman.  The post (which, though >having pretty much the same content, is an entirely different entity) was >addressed to all.  When she puts the letter in the mail I doubt it will >say "To: All".  I figure she wanted to let people here see what was in it >since it is a topic that interests a lot of folks here.  That's an entirely  >different purpose than sending the letter to Bettman.  And it is a damn good thing that she did post it since she claims to represent people in rec.sport.hockey.  >Unfortunately...  >The "largest computer networks in the world" phrase is a definition of  >the Internet, not a group as a whole that she claims to represent.  As  Her sole purpose in mentioning the net, as Steve Gallichio has already  pointed out, is to lend weight to her points through association with the internet.  There is no other reason to mention the internet.  This is  misrepresentation and if the internet was a private corporation Alison would be leaving herself wide open to all kinds of civil suits.  >for the business of whether or not it is large, it is large compared >to say, the number of folks on r.s.h. who are sending a letter to thank >him for changing the names, at least to this point.  And just for my  This is not a letter.  It is a petition claiming to represent a large proportion of rec.sport.hockey users, and by implication, a significant number of internet users.  65 names can in no way be considered a  "large" proportion of rec.sport.hockey which, while we have no way of counting actual readership, is accessible to hundreds of thousands of people.  65 persons is no more than a fly's fart in a windstorm.   >own curiosity I thought I'd look up the "official" definition of large >in the dictionary.  It reads:  >large - 1.  having more than usual power, capacity, or scope.     >        2.  exceeding most other things of like kind in quantity or size.  Gee.  You looked up "large" in the dictionary?  What next?  Two syllable  words?  >Now I have no idea how many letters Bettman may have gotten on the issue >or how many people may have signed them.  65 people may be up there,  >thereby validating definition 2.  I would also wager that the geographical >range of signatures is quite large, which would give it a large scope.  Let me suggest that the only place you are likely to envy the magnitude of  65 is when you are looking for ways to beef up your IQ scores.  >>He might be impressed by the size of the list of names.  >Why would he be impressed with this unless it were "large"?   As I said, he *might* be impressed by the size of the list of names.  But  it would have to be considerably larger.  But even this definition does not account for the original context from which you lifted this sentence.  >I personally don't know whether or not I agree with the letter.  I have >very mixed emotions about it.  I like the names as they are, and don't >think they make it that difficult to learn the game, but there might be >a shred of validity to the change.    Well then what the hell is your point?  You don't really know if you have an opinion about the hockey issue but you do know that you don't like me.   Is that it?   --