--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Peter Sutphen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Boy, has this turned into a massive pissing contest! > > > > > > > > Well it has raged on AMT for a while as well. > > > > > > No, it hasn't. > > > > Your response provides some interesting context for your repeated > > statements that Unc lies. While I have seen no indication of that, > > what he says may often be inconsequential, but here I have not seen > > outright lies. Not to say that he hasn't on AMT. > > > > However your claim that the Shankaracharaya linneage debate has not > > "raged on AMT for a while as well" struck me as quite odd. I rarely go > > the AMT, but have quite periodically looked at it for years. And I > > remember lots of debate on this issue. Steve P and Willtex come to > > mind as some of the debaters. I did a google group search on AMT and > > "shankaracharaya jyotir math" and came up with 11 pages of debate > > mostly on this issue. > > > > I like your posts, and they often provide insight. However, on this > > point, your implied casting of Vaj as incorrect -- not telling the > > truth -- makes me ponder you may certainly have some quite different > > standard for truth than most. And thus your "rants" about Unc not > > telling the truth have begun to pale in my mind. > > "Has raged on" implies an ongoing discussion. > > On the other hand, "pops up on occassion," or "has been raging on," etc., implies > something that has been around for a while, but may not be currently raging. > > Judy tends to be overly precise in her use of language.
--------------------- Well, Judy may be but you are not vry precise in your use of language. And it was Vaj's use of language, and Judy's alleged (mis)interpretation of it that you refer to. Or your misinterpretation of Judy's interpretation. The quote: "Well it has raged on AMT for a while " "on" in the original clearly refers to AMT, "on AMT", not to "ranged on" If it was "raged on" -- on referring to time, then Vaj's sentence structure sounds like a non-english speaker's syntax. Replace "raged on" with "continued unabated" and you have "the debate continued unabated AMT for a while". Nothing points to AMT. An "in" or "on" is required to point to AMT. I think Vaj's language is more precise than that. He does not talk like Any Kaufman's "Foreign Man" So the CLEAR meaning was " raged 'on AMT' for a while ", not, "raged 'on AMT' for a while" But even if he had said It has "'raged on' 'in AMT' for a while, I dont see that that connates either currently or continuously. The fact is, the debate 'HAS raged' 'on AMT'. For Judy to state it has not, is simply incorrect. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
