[lit-ideas] Re: Panic Attack Rant
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:27:41 +0100 (BST)
--- Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Donal McEvoy:
>
> "I'm afraid the argument that Old Tom meant something different, nay
> opposite, depends on making clear the meaning of what he said. And this
> your post fails to do."
>
> Nope.
Yep. See below.
> My post does exactly what it is supposed to do.
That's as may be.
>It asserts that
> Eliot means something different, even opposite, to the original poster.
It "asserts". But mere assertion is not argument. The assertion that TSE
meant "something different, even opposite" may not depend on making clear
what he did mean. But the/an argument that he meant something different etc.
does depend on making clear what he meant.
Second, by your own admission your post fails to argue in this way, as I
pointed out. So I don't know what you're 'noping' about.
> It makes no pretence to defending or justifying the assertion so my post
> can hardly have 'failed' if it does not make clear Eliot's meaning.
It may not have failed to do what you wanted, viz. assert, but it does fail
to argue in support of its assertion since it fails to explain what
alternative or opposite meaning TSE was trying to convey.
Donal
Coat-tailing as usual
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
