--- Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
If that's how you justify your error in stating that sex and pornography are not the same thing,
My error in stating that 'sex and pornography are not the same thing'. There is/was no error in this sentance. It remains true.
For the record, however, the person who makes the unclear statement and then defends it to death is the one who is manipulating semantics
Or rather, 'The one who pretends that they do not understand an unfeasibly straightforward statement as a means of prevarication is the one who is indulging in pointless semantic behaviour.'
Obviously not, since a debate ensued over the misstatement. Why would I bother with the obvious, if the correct intent had been stated?
Prevarication. Confusion. An avoidance of the real issue under discussion. The equivalent of correcting someone's pronounciation to distract from the valid point they made.
Yes, and it's also used universally to refer to gender, and to anything with sexual content.
Indeed. But context with words is almost everything. And context was clear. I invite any reader of this list to check back through archives of these posts in order to see this.
Look up 'cohort' in the dictionary. By no definition does the term demand that you have met or spoken to your cohort 'in person'.
No, but it does demand co-operation between two individuals. And he and I have not 'co-operated' in the course of this thread. We have posted seperate posts which sometimes concur and sometimes disagree.
Interestingly, your assualt on this use of 'cohort' is another example of the prevatication indicated above.
Really? I believe I just demonstrated another clarification, immediately above.
No.
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/