Joined: Jan. 2006
More sleazebaggery from Barry:
|Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)|
|I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements.|
I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there.
Here is what I actually wrote:
|Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions.|
I went on to give an example. I notice that
1) My point was completely misrepresented
2) My example is carefully omitted
3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me.
And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim.
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF