Paul Lowrance wrote (about Horace):
<<I was brief because of our last encounter, in which you assumed error in
my
sentence. Fact is my sentence did not contain enough information to make
such a
determination, and therefore you should have asked.>>
There WAS error in the sentence because it was clearly ambiguous and
therefore did not accurately communicate the author's meaning. It is
difficult to always write without some ambiguity - that is why legal
documents are so incredibly detailed and tortuously long - so the onus is
always on the writer to do a good job, however, to anyone with a reasonable
command of English the sentence was NOT 50/50 ambiguous (which would be that
both interpretations were equally possible) but by far the most likely
interpretation was the one that Horace, myself and others made.
Also <<Fact is my sentence did not contain enough information to make such a
determination, and therefore you should have asked. >>
Ridiculous and grossly arrogant! Firstly, you zealously defended your
interpretation as the correct one and that Horace's, and the others',
interpretation (which was the most accurate attempt at understanding your
poor sentence) was that of blundering idiots. Now you state that Horace
should have begged for clarification. You repeatedly failed to realise that
your sentence did not communicate what you meant accurately and that the
other's interpretation was the better one. You called for the services of an
"English major" and got some response which stated that the sentence WAS
ambiguous. Now you are representing your position as that you somehow
secretly knew this and that, bizarrely and massively arrogantly, it was your
audience's job to ask if we weren't smart enough to divine what you really
meant. If just about any one else on this forum had done what you did, and
been pulled up about it, they would not have gone into a hissy fit of self
justification, they would have apologised and thanked whoever pointed out
the error (if it was a "correct" correction). How about this Paul - it was
your job to tell us, in advance, before you started posting anything, that
your English comprehension was poor, your vanity was extreme, that you have
Humpty Dumpty's disease of believing that words mean whatever you say they
mean, that you therefore feel justified in twisting the meaning of sentences
and that you will shift your position half way though an argument when you
feel your position becoming shakier (when you started leaving out that your
original statement said X watts PER SQ METRE to make your interpretation
seem more likely).
Finally, in your message referenced above, you imply that you were right
all along and you put the burden of blame onto your audience for not
understanding you. Here is an article referencing Humpty Dumpty and the US.
constitution
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2007/01/29/how_humpty_dumpty_changed_the_world_34_years_of_roe
P.S. When I referenced "Alice through the Looking Glass" originally I stated
that it was the Red Queen who claimed that "words mean etc". I was wrong, it
was Humpty Dumpty. I would have welcomed correction...
