On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:25 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> 



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


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?  :-)

Or to be repeatedly amused at an alleged editor who can't read in between the lines? :-)


To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi



Reply via email to