<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><003401c26c70$a0171740$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<008a01c26c88$51186320$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b2
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: Discussions of the writings of science fiction/futurist authors
David Brin and Gregory Benford. <brin-l.mccmedia.com>
List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote:
> While I do not think your husband is an anti-Semite (in either sense),
> he is
> essentially hiding behind a non-denial.
He isn't hiding, he doesn't need to.
> It has been clearly pointed out that, in English, according to the
> etymology and vast majority of definitions, including the
> internationally recognized authority on
> word meaning, usage and etymology (that darn OED), the term anti-Semite"
> is in its most common and proper usage defined as "Jew-hater". Since
> Jeroen is not a Jew-hater, why is he wasting energy that could be spent
> studying for his tests arguing that the proper usage of a word is
> something it is not?
Because he is contending a different point. Since you don't care to
concede that it is rather pointless to repeat the whole discussion with
me. I yield. I really don't care enough to waste my time...... :o) If you
want to paint someone a color of your liking go ahead and use any brush
you want. I'll just filter it back to my own taste.
> Do you, or do you not, consider it important to ensure that all
> parties are at a common understanding of the meaning of a term,
> whether it be "anti-Semite", "cancer" or "cherry pie"?
Nope I don't. If someone else uses different definitions, I show interest
into that and take that into account the next time I need to discuss
something similar with that person. If I care enough and if there is a
chance of confusion leading to conflict I try to make sure that I give a
definition of what I mean. But I don't think that it is worth getting
worked up over.
> If I invite you over for "cherry pie" and, upon your arrival, hit you in
> the head
> with a stick, claiming that is *my* understanding of the term "cherry
> pie", am I therefore in the right, or did I just play a cruel trick
> upon you?
After I made that trip to the emergency room I'll make sure to inform the
police of your conduct (handing over any evidence) and instruct a lawyer
to file a claim for me. And if you ever again invite me I'll inform you
that I won't be able to attend.
Of course there is also the possibility of equal revenge if you claim it
was just a misunderstaning..... after all 'wie kaatst moet de bal
verwachten'
> If a doctor says, "You have ovarian cancer", but after
> you've had your ovaries surgically removed, says, "Now, when I said
> 'ovarian cancer', I meant 'lung cancer'", is that OK?
Well of course I'd never take a doctors word for anything. He has to show
me some pretty convincing evidence before he gets to put a knife into my
body. Fortunatly analitical medicine is becoming more and more open even
to a lay person. :o)
> No, we cannot depend upon words having the same meaning forever, but
> we *can* look at how words are used now, and we can look at the most
> common usages of them, and we can say, "Hmmm. Joe American just
> called Jeroen an anti-Semite. That means Joe American is calling
> Jeroen a Jew-hater."
Well you can call it what you want but I'm beginning to get tired of all
that self rightious chest pounding. If you wanne call Jeroen an
anti-semite well you have to put up with the fact that he defines it
different. So? What is the problem? You know that now, act accordingly or
discuss untill the moon turns blue, whatever. The world is big, many
people disagree about things. I just think that life is too short to get
worked up over such disagreement.
> Do you see the point I am making here? It doesn't matter a rat's a$$
> what you *want* a word to mean.
So? If Jeroen defines it differently, so be it. What is it to you? Are you
a purist or something? Or is there an alterior motive. Why can't you just
accept and move on? Jeroen knows he is no anti-semite no matter how much
you want it to be true or no matter how you define it. I know he isn't,
because I know him. So I guess that is what's important, all the rest is a
waste of space.
> In 20-30 years, if the new edition of the OED uses Jeroen's definition
> of "anti-Semite", I'll gladly concede that he has brought about a change
> in the usage of the term. Until then, I expect him to recognize that
> his usage goes against the proper and common usage of the term, and is
> therefore incorrect.
Actually it is not incorrect (no matter how much people want it to be) it
is just uncommon as the encyclopedia Brittanica already said. But if you
want it to be incorrect that is also fine with me. I don't care enough to
put effort into proving my view. And it isn't up to me to change you or
your views. I respect them for what they are in the context of the
impression I have of your displayed personallity. If that is contrary to
my views I just keep that in mind and stay as polite as possible, so as
not to hurt your feelings too much since you and others seem to feel so
terribly strong about it.
Sonja :o)
As someone "you know who you are :o)" recently pointed out to me: You can
lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink..... My thoughts
exactly, so why bother?
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
