me: >> Maybe, but arguments about the meaning and connotations of
words are pretty harmless. Besides, pen-l doesn't seem to have debates
any more.<<
> Right. And there are no debates over the meaning of marriage. It's
> *obviously* true, by definition, that marriage is between a man and a
woman and will be for all time................
let's see:
(1) "debates about words ... are pretty harmless" [within the context
of pen-l, BTW] _means the same thing as saying_ "there are no debates
over the meaning"
(2) and since there are no debates, one specific one -- that we both
disagree with -- is presumed to be the valid one. I doubt that Ian is
saying I agree with that definition, so why is it brought up at all?
I'm sorry that my logic isn't fuzzy enough.
To repeat what I said, the issue of whether the the Iraqi resistence
forces should be called "insurgents" or not is basically an _academic_
one (especially given the context). Should the long-necked dinosaur be
called a "Brontosaurus" or an "Apatosaurus"? that is a _much_ less
important question than that of the actual nature of the beast.
Ian seems to be saying that since the Bushmeisters use a term
("insurgents") it is _verboten_. So if Cheney calls his home a
"bunker," does that mean that we should eschew that term?
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
