Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 1:40:52 PM, you wrote:
> Sorry Dave. I view dictionaries, as the late lexicographer David P. > Guralnick said " Dictionaries are historical documents, recording > where a language was at the time it went to print" (or words to that > effect. > The great Ambrose Bierce had yet another definition of the dictionary > as "A malevolent literary device which makes a language hard and > in-elastic." > What I am leading up to, is that I reject your definition of spam. > Spam is a personal thing and we are dealing in semantics here. > You don't want all HTML to be viewed as Spam. I do. Point taken. I've often said that words are no more than what we make them. But on the other hand, doesn't communication require commonly accepted definitions of what words mean? How can I communicate with someone if every word I use has a different meaning to me than it does to the other person? I guess that's a question for another discussion altogether! You said above "You don't want all HTML to be viewed as Spam. I do." In my word games sentence, I said "I guess we could refer to anything we feel like as 'spam'". We're saying the same thing, aren't we? I could say that my cat is a dog because my definition of dogs includes cats, but I probably wouldn't find very many people to agree with me. -- Dave ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
