On 5/14/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In context, it seemed reasonable to interpret the use of the word
> "newspeak" as a point against the use of some jargon ("insurgency") as
> an invocation of the theory of newspeak that Orwell puts forth and as
> an assumption that the theory is true. I don't see why the theory has
> to be true in all contexts.
>
> You seemed to be appealing to the authority of not only Orwell, but
> also Wittgenstein, Austin, and Lakoff. Maybe I was wrong in my
> interpretation, but why bring them up at all if not to invoke their
> authority?
-------------------
Now now, it's against the rules to end/have the last word with a
question. I like the first part of your last sentence.
