----- Original Message -----
From: Leo Grin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 12:38 AM
Subject: RE: [rehfans] OFF TOPIC- Doublespeak
> My meaning was, "it is true", but "it is not true all the time," hence the
> qualifier "to some good degree." Good meaning that I'm certain it is true
> in over 50% of samplings (although I could be wrong), but there are no
> studies I know of that I can cite so I have to leave room for correction
in
> case someone comes along with evidence.
Thank you, Scotty. So Rusty, while you were assuming a cut-off of 80%,
secure in the knowledge that
you got his drift, Scotty was thinking the much different 50%, a figure that
you say you wouldn't be
comfortable with (except in certain UNDEFINED instances).
I don't want to belabour this, but I think IMO that Rusty's thinking is
right in line with mine. Yes, there is a subtle difference in his
interpretation but in this case you don't need to be absolutely precise to
get the drift. I said over 50% which means that 80% could easily be
accommodated but is certainly less than 100%, but no one probably knows for
sure.
I think what this demonstrates is exactly what I said about people
"interpreting" words and phrases differently. But even though we may see it
slightly differently, we understand the same concept. In this case being
vague is the only thing that works otherwise people will come back and
refute your statement as James did in the first place, by making an
amendment.
Scotty
