Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wwbc] Re: Visual language ?

Expand Messages
  • cmartin336@aol.com
    Thank you very much. I will check it. regards Claus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you very much.

      I will check it.

      regards
      Claus


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James W. Meritt
      ... how many ... very basics ... That appears to be an objection central to the philosophy espoused by General Semantics and is a major component of
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, cmartin336@a... wrote:

        > It is common nowadays, that people use the wrong labels. Look at,
        how many
        > people call themselves to be artists, even if they don´t master the
        very basics
        > of their profession.


        That appears to be an objection central to the philosophy espoused by
        General Semantics and is a major component of Rational-Emotative
        Therapy and Cognative Therapy.

        =============================================================

        I found researching visual thinking very interesting. It seemed a
        waste not to use those visualization capabilities of the brain for
        less than their potential.

        Jim
      • petemason55
        Hi I also had a good look. It does seem to be flexible. How about turning it to use with mnemonics and other learning strategies? Pete
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi
          I also had a good look. It does seem to be flexible. How about
          turning it to use with mnemonics and other learning strategies?

          Pete

          >
          > =============================================================
          >
          > I found researching visual thinking very interesting. It seemed a
          > waste not to use those visualization capabilities of the brain for
          > less than their potential.
          >
          > Jim
        • Keith Collyer
          ... that, I would ... or for the music ... important ingredients, ... instance. According to the first dictionary I picked up of several I have in the house:
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            n Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:24:30 EST clause wrote:

            > We can only apply more precise definitions ourselves. Doing
            that, I would
            > not use the word music for the beatles, for most of pop music
            or for the music
            > of Schönberg for instance, because they all lack some
            important ingredients,
            > if I compare them with Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart for
            instance.

            According to the first dictionary I picked up of several I have
            in the house:

            music 1. the art and science of combining tones in varying
            melody, harmony, etc., esp. so as to form complete and
            expressive compositions 2. the tones so arranged, or their
            arrangement 3. any rhythmic sequence of pleasing sounds, as of
            birds, etc. 4. a musical composition or compositions, esp. the
            written or printed score 5. ability to respond to or take
            pleasure in music

            Now, surely the music of The Beatles fits into one or more of
            those definitions? Indeed, even Schoenberg's music certainly
            does. Probably even John Cage.

            > Missing is a fascinating melody and clear structure and a
            masterful
            > accompaniment.

            Your definition, not an accepted one. It would not include any
            solo performances on a melodic instrument, not solo singing, to
            pick just two examples.

            > We could coin the name "noise music" for instance, for any
            kind of noises,
            > which have some rhythm and some kind of melody and which above
            all is performed
            > on an extremely high sound level.

            Or we could coin the name "dull music" for all other sorts [1].

            > A pneumatic hammer and rock n' roll would then fall into this
            class of "noise
            > music" and they both have the same effect:

            This is an argument clearly based on a spurious definition.

            > They destroy the ears of their hearers.

            Maybe, their choice. Irrelevant here.

            > Certainly every fan of rock n' roll "noise music", is now
            offended, but why
            > are they not prepared to admit, that they just use the wrong
            term ?

            They won't be offended if they use their brains, because they
            didn't use the wrong term, you did. Your arguments are weak,
            based on definitions invented for your own purposes and of no
            validity. I happen to use the word "Claus" as an adjective for a
            particularly stupid and vindictive kind of bonehead, so clearly,
            since you are called Claus (or sign yourself such), you must be
            such a person [2].

            I really enjoy most of what is posted here, Claus has himself
            posted things that made me think. I even find some of it useful.
            But why do so many people who are in a group calling itself the
            "World Wide Brain Club" so often insist on _not_ using their
            brains?

            Cheers

            KeithC

            [1] BTW, I don't think that, but if we are inventing terms with
            a deliberately pejorative intent...

            [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only
            to highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not
            intended to be personal at all.
          • cmartin336@aol.com
            In einer eMail vom 04.12.03 10:41:06 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt ... I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my personal opinion,
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In einer eMail vom 04.12.03 10:41:06 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
              keithc@...:


              >
              > n Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:24:30 EST clause wrote:
              >
              > > We can only apply more precise definitions ourselves. Doing
              > that, I would
              > > not use the word music for the beatles, for most of pop music
              > or for the music
              > > of Schönberg for instance, because they all lack some
              > important ingredients,
              > > if I compare them with Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart for
              > instance.
              >
              >
              > According to the first dictionary I picked up of several I have
              > in the house:
              >
              > music 1. the art and science of combining tones in varying
              > melody, harmony, etc., esp. so as to form complete and
              > expressive compositions 2. the tones so arranged, or their
              > arrangement 3. any rhythmic sequence of pleasing sounds, as of
              > birds, etc. 4. a musical composition or compositions, esp. the
              > written or printed score 5. ability to respond to or take
              > pleasure in music
              >
              > Now, surely the music of The Beatles fits into one or more of
              > those definitions? Indeed, even Schoenberg's music certainly
              > does. Probably even John Cage.
              >
              > > Missing is a fascinating melody and clear structure and a
              > masterful
              > > accompaniment.
              >
              > Your definition, not an accepted one. It would not include any
              > solo performances on a melodic instrument, not solo singing, to
              > pick just two examples.
              >
              > > We could coin the name "noise music" for instance, for any
              > kind of noises,
              > > which have some rhythm and some kind of melody and which above
              > all is performed
              > > on an extremely high sound level.
              >
              > Or we could coin the name "dull music" for all other sorts [1].
              >
              > > A pneumatic hammer and rock n' roll would then fall into this
              > class of "noise
              > > music" and they both have the same effect:
              >
              > This is an argument clearly based on a spurious definition.
              >
              > > They destroy the ears of their hearers.
              >
              > Maybe, their choice. Irrelevant here.
              >
              > > Certainly every fan of rock n' roll "noise music", is now
              > offended, but why
              > > are they not prepared to admit, that they just use the wrong
              > term ?
              >
              > They won't be offended if they use their brains, because they
              > didn't use the wrong term, you did. Your arguments are weak,
              > based on definitions invented for your own purposes and of no
              > validity. I happen to use the word "Claus" as an adjective for a
              > particularly stupid and vindictive kind of bonehead, so clearly,
              > since you are called Claus (or sign yourself such), you must be
              > such a person [2].
              >
              > I really enjoy most of what is posted here, Claus has himself
              > posted things that made me think. I even find some of it useful.
              > But why do so many people who are in a group calling itself the
              > "World Wide Brain Club" so often insist on _not_ using their
              > brains?
              >
              > Cheers
              >
              > KeithC
              >
              > [1] BTW, I don't think that, but if we are inventing terms with
              > a deliberately pejorative intent...
              >
              > [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only
              > to highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not
              > intended to be personal at all.
              >
              >
              >
              > To unsubscribe via email: From your email program, send a blank message to:
              > wwbc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              > KeithC,

              I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my personal
              opinion, that we need more precise definitions, to classify different kinds of
              music.

              When you use the definition in a dictionary, then it is clear, that you just
              base your argumentation on a definition, which I critize, to be too broad.

              If you want to stay with that definition. Fine. Then I would use another
              definition for the music of Händel, Bach, Mozart for instance. It should get
              clear, that there is a big difference in quality between their music and that of
              Schönberg for instance.

              That you get personal offensive in your further argumentation is a pity and I
              don´t understand it and will not further comment your behaviour.

              regards
              Claus



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • kacolly
              ... personal ... different kinds of ... But if we cannot agree on the meaning of terms, what we are doing is not constructive. You define music, then noise
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, cmartin336@a... wrote:
                Claus wrote:

                > I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my
                personal
                > opinion, that we need more precise definitions, to classify
                different kinds of
                > music.

                But if we cannot agree on the meaning of terms, what we are doing is
                not constructive. You define music, then "noise music", in such a way
                as to annoy people who happen to like the music that you disparage. It
                is not clear if that annoyance was a deliberate or unintended effect.
                That is your choice, but it cannot form the basis of a rational
                argument or discussion.

                > When you use the definition in a dictionary, then it is clear, that
                you just
                > base your argumentation on a definition, which I critize, to be too
                broad.

                As I criticize yours for being too narrow. And, as I pointed out,
                your definition would exclude much music that you probably did not
                mean to exclude. It reminds me of when the UK Parliament tried to
                outlaw "raves" and created a definition of rave music that would have
                included almost everything (with the possible exception of aleatoric
                music, such as Cage).

                > If you want to stay with that definition. Fine. Then I would use
                another
                > definition for the music of Händel, Bach, Mozart for instance.
                It
                should get
                > clear, that there is a big difference in quality between their
                music
                and that of
                > Schönberg for instance.

                Ah, but then we are discussing the meaning of "quality". Bach and
                Mozart, I would agree. I am far from sure that Handel is "better"
                than Schoenberg. More emotional, perhaps (though the Gurrelieder is
                one of the most emotional works there is). And, in the end, it comes
                down to personal opinion. I love Bach, I like Schoenberg, Webern is
                too cold, I enjoy Handel, I think Robert Fripp is one of the most
                under-rated composers alive today and no piece of music moves me like
                Pink Floyd's Shine On You Crazy Diamond (a piece, incidentally, that
                meets your definition).

                > That you get personal offensive in your further argumentation is a
                pity and I
                > don´t understand it and will not further comment your behaviour.

                Did you read the footnote?

                [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only to
                highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not intended to be
                personal at all.

                I did not intend to make a personal attack, though I can now see how
                that could have been inferred. My point was to show that, although
                you can claim that it is only your meaning, the use of a specific word
                _can_ be misleading (and even offensive) to people. It is clear from
                most of your contributions here that you do _not_ fit the definition
                I used.

                The basis of much of the message I was responding to was your (quite
                correct) claim that people mislead by using words to mean things that
                are not correct. My point was that you had gone on to do _exactly_
                the same thing.

                Cheers

                KeithC
              • cmartin336@aol.com
                In einer eMail vom 05.12.03 21:52:45 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt ... Hi KeithC, thanks for your clarification. Indeed, I didn´t correctly
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In einer eMail vom 05.12.03 21:52:45 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
                  keithc@...:


                  > Thema:[wwbc] Re: Visual language ?
                  > Datum:05.12.03 21:52:45 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit
                  > Von:<A HREF="mailto:keithc@...">keithc@...</A>
                  > Beantworten:<A HREF="mailto:wwbc@yahoogroups.com">wwbc@yahoogroups.com</A>
                  > An:<A HREF="mailto:wwbc@yahoogroups.com">wwbc@yahoogroups.com</A>
                  > Internet-eMail:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, cmartin336@a... wrote:
                  > Claus wrote:
                  >
                  > > I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my
                  > personal
                  > > opinion, that we need more precise definitions, to classify
                  > different kinds of
                  > > music.
                  >
                  > But if we cannot agree on the meaning of terms, what we are doing is
                  > not constructive. You define music, then "noise music", in such a way
                  > as to annoy people who happen to like the music that you disparage. It
                  > is not clear if that annoyance was a deliberate or unintended effect.
                  > That is your choice, but it cannot form the basis of a rational
                  > argument or discussion.
                  >
                  > > When you use the definition in a dictionary, then it is clear, that
                  > you just
                  > > base your argumentation on a definition, which I critize, to be too
                  > broad.
                  >
                  > As I criticize yours for being too narrow. And, as I pointed out,
                  > your definition would exclude much music that you probably did not
                  > mean to exclude. It reminds me of when the UK Parliament tried to
                  > outlaw "raves" and created a definition of rave music that would have
                  > included almost everything (with the possible exception of aleatoric
                  > music, such as Cage).
                  >
                  > > If you want to stay with that definition. Fine. Then I would use
                  > another
                  > > definition for the music of Händel, Bach, Mozart for instance.
                  > It
                  > should get
                  > > clear, that there is a big difference in quality between their
                  > music
                  > and that of
                  > > Schönberg for instance.
                  >
                  > Ah, but then we are discussing the meaning of "quality". Bach and
                  > Mozart, I would agree. I am far from sure that Handel is "better"
                  > than Schoenberg. More emotional, perhaps (though the Gurrelieder is
                  > one of the most emotional works there is). And, in the end, it comes
                  > down to personal opinion. I love Bach, I like Schoenberg, Webern is
                  > too cold, I enjoy Handel, I think Robert Fripp is one of the most
                  > under-rated composers alive today and no piece of music moves me like
                  > Pink Floyd's Shine On You Crazy Diamond (a piece, incidentally, that
                  > meets your definition).
                  >
                  > > That you get personal offensive in your further argumentation is a
                  > pity and I
                  > > don´t understand it and will not further comment your behaviour.
                  >
                  > Did you read the footnote?
                  >
                  > [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only to
                  > highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not intended to be
                  > personal at all.
                  >
                  > I did not intend to make a personal attack, though I can now see how
                  > that could have been inferred. My point was to show that, although
                  > you can claim that it is only your meaning, the use of a specific word
                  > _can_ be misleading (and even offensive) to people. It is clear from
                  > most of your contributions here that you do _not_ fit the definition
                  > I used.
                  >
                  > The basis of much of the message I was responding to was your (quite
                  > correct) claim that people mislead by using words to mean things that
                  > are not correct. My point was that you had gone on to do _exactly_
                  > the same thing.
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  >
                  > KeithC
                  >

                  Hi KeithC,

                  thanks for your clarification. Indeed, I didn´t correctly understand your
                  comments.

                  So that this is another example, how difficulty communication can be.

                  Music is a wide field for discussion, because it covers several centuries and
                  a large range in styles.

                  Nowadays music is easy available, in former times one had to sing or play
                  oneself or others had to perform it.

                  But the effect onto our brain is quite different. It has been shown in
                  research about the brain, that actively playing an instrument, like a piano for
                  instance, but also some others and if one plays polyphonics music ( like in
                  renaissance or baroque time ) that this helps to improve intelligence of
                  students in the range of 10 to 15% or more.

                  Only hearing music has not this effect.

                  Also a marked difference in the effect of music to the hearers can be
                  observed.

                  There is music, which makes people aggressive and music which brings them
                  into a comtemplative state. ( up to now I never have heard, that people, who
                  visited the performance of music from Bach for instance, destroyed chairs and
                  other equipment. I also never have heard, that those visitors got deaf,caused
                  by the visit to this performance. )

                  Now the question is, if we should use the same label for both kinds of music.
                  It is similar to the question, if we should call Coke and white bread food.

                  When we use a too broad definition, which encloses things, which are
                  opposite, then this does not help to understand them.

                  And when we look at Television for instance, we can observe, that wrong
                  labels are more and more oftenly used on purpose to mislead people.

                  This leads to the further question, how much do we still control ourselves
                  and how much are we controlled by others.

                  Do we really still decide ourselves, what is good for us or do we just follow
                  "fashionable" trends ?

                  Music, food, fashion are some examples, where one can observe this problem.
                  We get bombarded by marketing people, that we believe, that something is
                  great and that we have to buy it and we buy it, without thinking about our
                  action.

                  In old times some kind of music was sacred. People believed, that they would
                  come into contact with their gods.

                  Pythagoras was convinced, that all the universe was based on vibrations (
                  what we nowadays know is true ) and he investigated the problem of vibrations,
                  using a monochord.

                  Meditative music has a strong influence onto our brain, because its
                  vibrations and interference patterns create other brain waves.

                  Military music and rock music on the opposite site can make people
                  aggressive.

                  Is it then helpful to start with the same definition for such contrary kinds
                  of "music".

                  Should we not start with the most basic term:

                  chaotic noise = sound waves without any structure
                  structured noise = sound waves with some structure

                  and go down in the hierarchy and see, if we really have to include rock
                  music and music from Bach under the same label or if we find some plausible
                  criteria, that they should be put into other branches.

                  Too general labels can be misleading and even get dangerous, because they
                  level the differences.

                  This subject will get also very complicated to deal with, using only text and
                  I think, that concept maps would be a good tool.

                  We should think about, to use a tool like knowledge manager or if one finds
                  another program, which is eventually better. o.k.

                  Because we never come deeper in a discussion, because after some time the
                  overview gets lost.

                  regards
                  Claus

                  p.s.
                  as I wrote earlier, I will not take part in any discussion in the next two
                  weeks, because I am travelling. But I would like to go on with you and others
                  to discuss this matter further.




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • amywang000
                  Dear group I would like to know how could I use mindmaps. I am having a exam in 5 weeks on my course. I like to read speed for buzan fast reading also. How
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear group

                    I would like to know how could I use mindmaps. I am having a exam in
                    5 weeks on my course. I like to read speed for buzan fast reading
                    also. How can I do it?

                    Thank you very much
                    Amy


                    --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, "kacolly" <keithc@c...> wrote:
                    > --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, cmartin336@a... wrote:
                    > Claus wrote:
                    >
                    > > I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my
                    > personal
                    > > opinion, that we need more precise definitions, to classify
                    > different kinds of
                    > > music.
                    >
                    > But if we cannot agree on the meaning of terms, what we are doing
                    is
                    > not constructive. You define music, then "noise music", in such a
                    way
                    > as to annoy people who happen to like the music that you disparage.
                    It
                    > is not clear if that annoyance was a deliberate or unintended
                    effect.
                    > That is your choice, but it cannot form the basis of a rational
                    > argument or discussion.
                    >
                    > > When you use the definition in a dictionary, then it is clear,
                    that
                    > you just
                    > > base your argumentation on a definition, which I critize, to be
                    too
                    > broad.
                    >
                    > As I criticize yours for being too narrow. And, as I pointed out,
                    > your definition would exclude much music that you probably did not
                    > mean to exclude. It reminds me of when the UK Parliament tried to
                    > outlaw "raves" and created a definition of rave music that would
                    have
                    > included almost everything (with the possible exception of
                    aleatoric
                    > music, such as Cage).
                    >
                    > > If you want to stay with that definition. Fine. Then I would use
                    > another
                    > > definition for the music of Händel, Bach, Mozart for instance.
                    > It
                    > should get
                    > > clear, that there is a big difference in quality between their
                    > music
                    > and that of
                    > > Schönberg for instance.
                    >
                    > Ah, but then we are discussing the meaning of "quality". Bach and
                    > Mozart, I would agree. I am far from sure that Handel is "better"
                    > than Schoenberg. More emotional, perhaps (though the Gurrelieder is
                    > one of the most emotional works there is). And, in the end, it
                    comes
                    > down to personal opinion. I love Bach, I like Schoenberg, Webern is
                    > too cold, I enjoy Handel, I think Robert Fripp is one of the most
                    > under-rated composers alive today and no piece of music moves me
                    like
                    > Pink Floyd's Shine On You Crazy Diamond (a piece, incidentally,
                    that
                    > meets your definition).
                    >
                    > > That you get personal offensive in your further argumentation is
                    a
                    > pity and I
                    > > don´t understand it and will not further comment your behaviour.
                    >
                    > Did you read the footnote?
                    >
                    > [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only to
                    > highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not intended to
                    be
                    > personal at all.
                    >
                    > I did not intend to make a personal attack, though I can now see
                    how
                    > that could have been inferred. My point was to show that, although
                    > you can claim that it is only your meaning, the use of a specific
                    word
                    > _can_ be misleading (and even offensive) to people. It is clear
                    from
                    > most of your contributions here that you do _not_ fit the definition
                    > I used.
                    >
                    > The basis of much of the message I was responding to was your
                    (quite
                    > correct) claim that people mislead by using words to mean things
                    that
                    > are not correct. My point was that you had gone on to do _exactly_
                    > the same thing.
                    >
                    > Cheers
                    >
                    > KeithC
                  • markright777
                    Hi Amy Welcome! Regarding your questions; Refer to this link; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wwbc/message/15446 The advice is reliable and quoted from well
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Amy
                      Welcome!

                      Regarding your questions;
                      Refer to this link;

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wwbc/message/15446

                      The advice is reliable and quoted from well researched literature.
                      Mark:)




                      --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, "amywang000" <amywang000@y...> wrote:
                      > Dear group
                      >
                      > I would like to know how could I use mindmaps. I am having a exam
                      in
                      > 5 weeks on my course. I like to read speed for buzan fast reading
                      > also. How can I do it?
                      >
                      > Thank you very much
                      > Amy
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, "kacolly" <keithc@c...> wrote:
                      > > --- In wwbc@yahoogroups.com, cmartin336@a... wrote:
                      > > Claus wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > I think, that it is clear in my text, that I make utter my
                      > > personal
                      > > > opinion, that we need more precise definitions, to classify
                      > > different kinds of
                      > > > music.
                      > >
                      > > But if we cannot agree on the meaning of terms, what we are doing
                      > is
                      > > not constructive. You define music, then "noise music", in such a
                      > way
                      > > as to annoy people who happen to like the music that you
                      disparage.
                      > It
                      > > is not clear if that annoyance was a deliberate or unintended
                      > effect.
                      > > That is your choice, but it cannot form the basis of a rational
                      > > argument or discussion.
                      > >
                      > > > When you use the definition in a dictionary, then it is clear,
                      > that
                      > > you just
                      > > > base your argumentation on a definition, which I critize, to be
                      > too
                      > > broad.
                      > >
                      > > As I criticize yours for being too narrow. And, as I pointed out,
                      > > your definition would exclude much music that you probably did
                      not
                      > > mean to exclude. It reminds me of when the UK Parliament tried to
                      > > outlaw "raves" and created a definition of rave music that would
                      > have
                      > > included almost everything (with the possible exception of
                      > aleatoric
                      > > music, such as Cage).
                      > >
                      > > > If you want to stay with that definition. Fine. Then I would
                      use
                      > > another
                      > > > definition for the music of Händel, Bach, Mozart for instance.
                      > > It
                      > > should get
                      > > > clear, that there is a big difference in quality between their
                      > > music
                      > > and that of
                      > > > Schönberg for instance.
                      > >
                      > > Ah, but then we are discussing the meaning of "quality". Bach and
                      > > Mozart, I would agree. I am far from sure that Handel is "better"
                      > > than Schoenberg. More emotional, perhaps (though the Gurrelieder
                      is
                      > > one of the most emotional works there is). And, in the end, it
                      > comes
                      > > down to personal opinion. I love Bach, I like Schoenberg, Webern
                      is
                      > > too cold, I enjoy Handel, I think Robert Fripp is one of the most
                      > > under-rated composers alive today and no piece of music moves me
                      > like
                      > > Pink Floyd's Shine On You Crazy Diamond (a piece, incidentally,
                      > that
                      > > meets your definition).
                      > >
                      > > > That you get personal offensive in your further argumentation
                      is
                      > a
                      > > pity and I
                      > > > don´t understand it and will not further comment your behaviour.
                      > >
                      > > Did you read the footnote?
                      > >
                      > > [2] If you can't tell, this is an extreme example designed only
                      to
                      > > highlight the invalidity of Claus's argument, and not intended to
                      > be
                      > > personal at all.
                      > >
                      > > I did not intend to make a personal attack, though I can now see
                      > how
                      > > that could have been inferred. My point was to show that, although
                      > > you can claim that it is only your meaning, the use of a specific
                      > word
                      > > _can_ be misleading (and even offensive) to people. It is clear
                      > from
                      > > most of your contributions here that you do _not_ fit the
                      definition
                      > > I used.
                      > >
                      > > The basis of much of the message I was responding to was your
                      > (quite
                      > > correct) claim that people mislead by using words to mean things
                      > that
                      > > are not correct. My point was that you had gone on to do _exactly_
                      > > the same thing.
                      > >
                      > > Cheers
                      > >
                      > > KeithC
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.