[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fuzzy Fallacies
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Steven M. Belknap wrote:
> The professorial tone is amusing, of course. I hope your
> students don't laugh at you as hard as they laugh at me when I get all
> pompous and speak ex cathedra. (Which unfortunately I still do sometimes.)
> Defined by who? The Peter Schuerman Dictionary of Idiosyncratic American
> No doubt you consider the
> dictionary you walk around with in your head to be very fine indeed,
> perhaps because it contains definitions which conveniently mututate so as
> to win arguments with your learned colleagues.
> I again challenge Peter's insistence that he is the one true source of
> information about the proper use of language.
This conversation was interesting at first but I am getting bored now with
your misrepresentation of my position and your ad hominem approach.
Rather than continuing in this fashion, you might want to try responding
to the message recently posted by Jorge Llambias (Re: fuzzy questions). I
thought he raised some excellent points about your attempts to use fuzzy
logic linguistically, and these might make more sense to you.
Peter Schuerman email@example.com
Co-editor, SPECTRA Online
for back issues: http://www.well.com/user/phandaal/