Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Meanings of Words
Message-ID: <1119@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 20:37:15 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1119
Posted: Wed Nov 14 20:37:15 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 07:56:09 EST
References: <606@watdcsu.UUCP> <294@qantel.UUCP> <258@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 19

I have to disagree with Ken: the language of men is not the language of
God.  God may have invented Meaning; we are the ones who give meanings.
Is this not the significance of the statement in Genesis that God had
Adam name the creatures of the earth?

On the other hand, I must object to the way Rich Rosen is always telling
us what we mean when we use this or that word.  We have generally been
quite willing to say what we mean by a particular word, and if we have
used the word inconsistently used the word, I have no problem with him
pointing out the inconsistency.  What has done instead is to flatly
state that we mean something different from what we have defined, without
any evidence of a difference from our own arguments.  This shows, as
Screwtape might say, "a promising streak of intellectual dishonesty".

(Being a mathematician by training, I notice the mathematicians have
no problems with redefining things all the time; perhaps it is only
Rich who has this problem.)

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe