On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:22:33 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.

I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's
statement.

No, you can't just screw around with an acutal quote and claim that "Bush
said..................." if Bush did not. That's not characterization.

Reread the item that has you confused.
It compared two possible approaches to
diplomacy, from the perspective of the US
"speaking" to a foreign power.
There was no claim that either of the contrasting statements were attributable
to
any specific person or group. Why you now insist on infering that there was is
a bit puzzling. It's almost as if you're hoping to distract from the message by
shifitng discussion to the medium.

"John H" wrote in message
...


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:56:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 02 Jan 2004 15:47:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's
statement.

No, you can't just screw around with an acutal quote and claim that "Bush
said..................." if Bush did not. That's not characterization.

Reread the item that has you confused.
It compared two possible approaches to
diplomacy, from the perspective of the US
"speaking" to a foreign power.
There was no claim that either of the contrasting statements were attributable
to
any specific person or group. Why you now insist on infering that there was is
a bit puzzling. It's almost as if you're hoping to distract from the message by
shifitng discussion to the medium.

Then what was the purpose in the statements? The discussion had to do
with the PNAC, not made up statements. In fact, I have been trying to
get you to stick to what's written.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

Maybe. :-) But,. it's 45 degrees, the rain has stopped, and I'm having
hallucinations. There are brown trout drifting along the wall behind my
desk. I can't focus on anything else at the moment.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.



You're wasting your time with John Herring. He lives in a rigid little
box and can't see its corners, never mind the opening at the top.

--
Email sent to is never read.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.



Yes, clarity would certainly help George W. Bush overcome his incessant
lying about everything important.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:27:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

Maybe. :-) But,. it's 45 degrees, the rain has stopped, and I'm having
hallucinations. There are brown trout drifting along the wall behind my
desk. I can't focus on anything else at the moment.

It's 48 here in northern VA, and there are no trout to be seen. Where
are you? Out there in Seattle with Chuck?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

Maybe. :-) But,. it's 45 degrees, the rain has stopped, and I'm having
hallucinations. There are brown trout drifting along the wall behind my
desk. I can't focus on anything else at the moment.

It's 48 here in northern VA, and there are no trout to be seen. Where
are you? Out there in Seattle with Chuck?

John H

I'm in Rochester NY. There are TWO trout to be seen on my kitchen counter.
The first 4 were too small to keep. Frankly, it's not supposed to work this
well. I'm really surprised. There's a hatchery about 2 miles upstream from
where I fished, and I thought maybe they'd released a few. But, these fish
are much more colorful than the ones that've lived on hatchery food. It
usually takes them a good 3-4 months of yummy bug dinners to develop the
wild color.