@JTT,
David wrote:Thay did not teach us of "bonkers" in law school.
JTT wrote:Considering that the sum total of OmSigD is what you learned in law school, [?????]
it becomes clear why you are such a shallow thinker.
According to your reasoning, I did not exist b4 I entered law school.
Have u
EVIDENCE of your premise?????
It is an unsupported assumption. FOOLISHNESS
It serves only to
impugn the quality of your reasoning, J.
We might have hoped for
better than that.
David wrote:I already addressed it and found it to be emotion-based and devoid of merit.
JTT wrote:You addressed it not at all. But that's just your way.
It appears that u
did not READ my post.
JTT wrote:Let me make it simple for you.
Step 1: There are phrases in English that hold meanings
that cannot be discerned from their dictionary meanings.
These are called idioms.
To the extent that thay vary
from ordinary use, thay deserve neither recognition nor respect.
I accord them
NEITHER. That is good and competent logic.
JTT wrote:One such idiom is 'could care less'.
It means what the words
literally MEAN, regardless
of any "idiom". A man
can and (logically
shoud)
refuse to speculate regarding another man's secret thoughts
and hold him responsible for the literal meaning of his words.
JTT wrote:Every English speaker on the planet knows what it means when used in NaE dialects.
I re-iterate that no one
is bound to know the secret thoughts nor emotions of anyone else,
regardless of any "idiom" (in which I
refuse to take any interest).
The words mean what thay
SAY,
and I will hold anyone and everyone responsible for his chosen words,
INCLUDING every time I sit on a jury in court.
JTT wrote:I've given you a number of examples where the obvious meaning
does not always hold. This particular idiom, 'could care less',
is just one more example of a phrase that has developed into
an English idiom, with its own idiomatic meaning.
Such is the same as the babbling of a baby, with as much meaning.
David wrote:I cannot be expected to accept defective reasoning
JTT wrote:You are Mr Defective Reasoning in most everything you utter about language.
I r
eject your characterization.
JTT wrote:One excellent example: you maintain that English must follow the rules of math
I certainly
DO.
YES!
JTT wrote:- now that's truly defective reasoning.
I recognize the folly of your denial.
I suspect that it is based only on your emotions.
JTT wrote:In fact, there is no reasoning at all because even you, Mr Defective Reasoning, knows
HAY: don 't tell me what I
know; u r not a telepath.
JTT wrote:that a double negative, [which actually isn't a double negative at all - but I don't
expect you to be able to grasp that [ naked ad hominem ] doesn't mean a positive.
Nonsense; I
challenge your assertion.
Denying that we have no tomatos is asserting their possession.
JTT wrote:By the same token, you also know that when someone says,
"Om, I could care less what you think", that they are suggesting that they do care what you think.
YES; if he cares with
TREMENDOUS INTENSITY about what someone thinks,
then it is possible for him to care
LESS than that.