In a message dated 3/7/01 1:35:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:
<<There was a cerain element of semantic trickery and equivocation contained within your posts in this thread.<<
If that's how you justify your error in stating that sex and pornography are not the same thing, rather than 'the sexual act and pornography are not the same thing,' whatever makes you feel better about it. For the record, however, the person who makes the unclear statement and then defends it to death is the one who is manipulating semantics, not anyone struggling to figure out what it is that you actually meant.
I think it was fairly clear form the initial point.<<
Obviously not, since a debate ensued over the misstatement. Why would I bother with the obvious, if the correct intent had been stated?
The single word 'sex' is used frequently as a standard
euphamism for what you have term "the performance of the act of sex"<<
Yes, and it's also used universally to refer to gender, and to anything with sexual content. Just as the word 'violence' encompasses a wide range of activities and meanings, and we do not automatically assume it means "the act of violence."
And as for "cohort" altho' Mr. Faulkner has shown, in
the course of these debates, that he is an intelligent, open-minded person with a skill for making a valid argument, I have never met nor spoken to him. More's the pity.<<
Look up 'cohort' in the dictionary. By no definition does the term demand that you have met or spoken to your cohort 'in person'.
Well, I'll certainly take credit for some clarity,<<
I wouldn't.<
Really? I believe I just demonstrated another clarification, immediately above.
Leah
--- Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
If that's how you justify your error in stating that sex and pornography are not the same thing,
My error in stating that 'sex and pornography are not the same thing'. There is/was no error in this sentance. It remains true.
For the record, however, the person who makes the unclear statement and then defends it to death is the one who is manipulating semantics
Or rather, 'The one who pretends that they do not understand an unfeasibly straightforward statement as a means of prevarication is the one who is indulging in pointless semantic behaviour.'
Obviously not, since a debate ensued over the misstatement. Why would I bother with the obvious, if the correct intent had been stated?
Prevarication. Confusion. An avoidance of the real issue under discussion. The equivalent of correcting someone's pronounciation to distract from the valid point they made.
Yes, and it's also used universally to refer to gender, and to anything with sexual content.
Indeed. But context with words is almost everything. And context was clear. I invite any reader of this list to check back through archives of these posts in order to see this.
Look up 'cohort' in the dictionary. By no definition does the term demand that you have met or spoken to your cohort 'in person'.
No, but it does demand co-operation between two individuals. And he and I have not 'co-operated' in the course of this thread. We have posted seperate posts which sometimes concur and sometimes disagree.
Interestingly, your assualt on this use of 'cohort' is another example of the prevatication indicated above.
Really? I believe I just demonstrated another clarification, immediately above.
No.
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Wilson and others...
Look up 'cohort' in the dictionary. By no definition does the term demand that you have met or spoken to your cohort 'in person'.
No, but it does demand co-operation between two individuals. And he and I have not 'co-operated' in the course of this thread. We have posted seperate posts which sometimes concur and sometimes disagree.
etc.
Is there any chance we could call this off topic as it's becoming a discussion of Robert's Rules of Order or similar and take it to the spin list or private mail?
Just a non offensive IMHO thought...
Emma.
--- emma emmapeel@calvino.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Is there any chance we could call this off topic as it's becoming a discussion of Robert's Rules of Order or similar and take it to the spin list or private mail?
Sorry, but with Annie continually pretending to not understand things, and asking questions she knows the answers to in order prevaricate further and excercise Mandy style 'spin', I thought some 'cutting through the c[deleted} had become neccesary. But it's time and space consuming for those not pretending/prevaricating, and e-mail is costly.
Just a non offensive IMHO thought...
and a reasonable one. My apologies, Mrs Peel.
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
emma -
Wilson Fisk