Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:39:56 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad9206d$0$23783$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:43:15 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>That's certainly one type of mysticism. In this case, I think we have
>>someone acting more like Alice with Humpty Dumpty. The name "donation"
>>means exactly what the person who applied it to a table meant at the time.
> "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
>
> More like Humpty Dumpty:
> 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'" --
> "Through the Lookingglass"
I disagree. The person who created the donations table acted exactly like Humpty. The name means exactly what he meant when he applied it to the table. That person isn't here that we know of.
Lawpoop acted like Alice when she gave her age instead of describing what she had (or in her case had not) said about her age. He inferred something that was neither stated nor implied.
Now, had you quoted the part near where Humpty says a name like Alice could mean almost anything when you suggested Lawpoop acted like Humpty, I would have had to concede that Lawpoop acted like both Humpty and Alice. Received on Sat Oct 17 2009 - 03:39:56 CEST