--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > One factor is the tendency to respond to what one infers the poster > implied. Whew, what a sentence, but its a useful model: > > a) words written ===>> > > b1) meanings intentionally implied, or > b2) meanings unconsciously implied, but logically present (the > writer has not realized the implications, but readers may)
For example, in a recent thread, Lawson wrote (regarding Andrew Skolnick): When it comes to TM and other matters New-Age-ish, he's more than a bit obsessed. Vaj replied: Sounds like you too [sic] have a lot in common. I commented: If so, the big difference would be that Sparaig doesn't attempt to deceive or mislead anybody. Vaj responded: That was joke, right? Now, logically, the implication of Vaj's response is that Lawson does indeed attempt to mislead and deceive. Just to make sure, I asked Vaj if that was indeed what he meant. In fact, I've now asked him three separate times. What is the logical implication, do you suppose, of his failure to reply? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
