of course. You might be wrong, too.
On 5/14/05, Autoplectic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/14/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In context, it seemed reasonable to interpret the use of the word
> > "newspeak" as a point against the use of some jargon ("insurgency") as
> > an invocation of the theory of newspeak that Orwell puts forth and as
> > an assumption that the theory is true. I don't see why the theory has
> > to be true in all contexts.
> >
> > You seemed to be appealing to the authority of not only Orwell, but
> > also Wittgenstein, Austin, and Lakoff. Maybe I was wrong in my
> > interpretation, but why bring them up at all if not to invoke their
> > authority?
>
> -------------------
>
> Now now, it's against the rules to end/have the last word with a
> question. I like the first part of your last sentence.
>
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
