--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > 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?
Having the good taste to avoid someone who is obviously trying to start a fight? :-) 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/
