Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: THE MIND EXTENDS BEYOND THE SKIN Keywords: Language, rape Message-ID: <2601@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 16 Mar 89 14:32:40 GMT References: <305@edai.ed.ac.uk> <7337@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <18163@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 22 In article <18163@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > The argument that follows is basically over definitions, not >content. Such arguments are inherently futile. I see your type a lot, and I still can't work out where this idea comes from that there is a content separable from our use of language. I presume that every research project you've worked on has been driven by a set of futile definitions? Don't be a jock about language. A Scottish man has been charged with raping his wife. His legal advisors objected on the grounds that, in law, one cannot 'rape' one's wife. They have been overruled. Strange how major social movements are based on something as futile as arguments over language. I find your comment exceptionally shallow and naive. I think you should expand so we can have the benefit of your wondrous epistemology. Regale us with your hard and fast line between definition and content. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert