From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 23:10:51 CST
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
>>>Since the Subject header is not defined to carry such information in a
>>>netnews environment, software SHOULD NOT attempt to interpret it. It's
>>>defined to be "unstructured", that's how software should interpret it.
. . .
>> Next, in two consecutive sentences you first state that software
>> SHOULD NOT attempt to interpret something, then state *how* software
>> should interpret it. I see an inherent contradiction.
>
> You evidently realize that "interpret" has multiple meanings, yet
> you then proceed to fall into the logical fallacy of equivocation.
I know it has multiple meanings. Using it with two difference
meanings in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph with no
indication that its meaning has changed is at best unclear.
Equivocation is a form of incorrect argument which looks correct due
to ambiguity. What I objected to is a sort of inverse: something that
looks incorrect due to saying both "NOT X" and "X". If "X" had two
different meanings they should have been specified.
Seth