terminological obscurity

[Donn Cave]

In article <nd83b0dgrt0su2cbrqm5gtsur49p3oj19u at 4ax.com>,
 Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:54:11 -0000, "Donn Cave" <donn at drizzle.com>
> wrote:
...
> >It's too bad if he said that.  I think it has not led to mass confusion
> >because if one interpretation of that 10 word summary makes it an utterly
> >absurd proposition, most people are inclined to give him enough credit
> >to look for another interpretation.
> 
> We agree as to the dynamics at work.
> 
> But seem to have different feelings about it.  
> 
> I honestly don't know what he meant here, or how seriously he meant
> it.
> 
> But there have been other instances, on other issues, where it has
> been clearer to me what he meant. Some of those issues were of more
> significance, to me, than this.  And guess what, it was my conclusion
> that he was simply and utterly wrong.  And felt myself to be arguing
> within a community that seemed to find it necessary to find him right,
> by any means necessary.

I may have been there, I sure remember other occasions where
the two of you differed over things.  I have too, and the way
I remember it, I have taken your side as often as not.  But
it's never a case of `simply and utterly wrong', there's always
some question of judgement in there.  One never knows, but
there's some reason to think that I'm not vastly smarter than
everyone else, so it's prudent and generally more effective
to look pretty hard for the sense in what I disagree with.

   Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu