On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
"This thing is invalid" differs from "I cannot see the validity in this thing" in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent.
I don't believe I ever disputed that.
With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is valid"
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq "unjustifiable", eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views.
"I cannot see the validity in this thing" expresses the speaker's state
in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree
or leave the speaker with his or her doubts.
I've used that language other times. As I stated before it has partly to do with how much I'm paying attention -- all evidence to the contrary aside I have other things to do than read/post here -- and partly with how certain I am of something. Also, I like the occasional shock value phrase.
You might have been the one to insert the digression, but you weren't the one to drag it into a quagmire, FWIW. That was the work of someone else.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
