O wrote that "if you have nothing against my views or personality but do not . . . . I will understand." _____ If O didn't know about it, how could he understand it? Can one understand the unknown? Can one hold a grudge against the unknown? Or maybe one makes predictions about how one would understand new things so that the unknown becomes more easily parceled out? The one thing certain about our predictions is that we claim to have made them. For example, I have nothing against O 's personality. But unless I state my opinion about subscription or his list's proposed focus--how would he understand? O implies that he views the list subscription choices of others without any personal resentment toward those making existentially genuine choices. This "understanding" has "forgiveness" written right into it. The word use seems to turn on the maxim, "to understand all is to forgive all" with the "forgiving" part elided so that its very elision becomes its tacit meaning, i.e., "I understand people will have different responses, and I will not be offended by that; instead, I will forgive them in advance for their choices" becomes, "I will understand." Seems like the kind of thing JL Speranza could untangle, were he moved to do so, into related semantic deep structures. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html