Staten Island Web logo's very apparent that you personally take issue with Microsoft. That (of course) is certainly your prerogative. However, as you have just stated in your most recent post, you really do not (in my estimation) have a right to disparage that which you have no first hand knowledge of. I applaud your sense of fairness on that point.

As for the rest of what you went on to say, I must definetly take issue with that, but before I go any further I just want to make it clear that anything (and actually everything) I said was said strictly in the spirit of discussion and debate. I'm getting the impression that you feel a bit stung by my words and so I now apologize as that was never my intention.

Debate and discussion is a great love of mine. It has always been. Whatever I say in the midst of that endeavor is never ever personal. I may argue or disagree, but it is always with the "issue" and never the other party.

As far as I'm concerned, unless a debate takes place in a court room, or for some kind of specific competition, there are no "winners" or "losers". There are just people expressing what they feel to be true. There is no judgement there, just exchange.

I think you sorely need to re~read my post. I did not at any point in the text of my previous post say, nor intimate in any way that I was using the dictionary to "decide what is right or wrong". Believe me when I tell you that I can think for myself! *LOL* In fact, I was doing so in that very post. If you doubt that I invite you to read and re~read my posts (any or all of them) on this web site. They're a matter of public record. I think after doing so it will become crystal clear that I can, and do...think for myself! *S*

Now, having gotten that issue out of the way, I move on.

You said: "but to tell you what people mean by the words" That was your attempt to enlighten me as to what a dictionary "actually" was. Well, I thank you for the attempt anyway, however unnecessary it was. I reiterate, I knew all the while just what a dictionary was. You missed my point entirely. I was using the dictionary to tell YOU what "people mean by the word".

You may personally not find value in the Microsoft Thesaurus...and you may as well find the American Heritage Dictionary insufficient to meet the expectations of your personal standards, but be that as it may, PERSONAL STANDARDS do not belong in a debate or discussion. Your sense of fairplay and justice was most definetely derailed by doing so.

I was not saying that Microsoft was the be all and the end all in word definitions. I was not saying that about the American Heritage Dictionary either. BUT...I was saying that they are both considered acceptable authorities for reference and I remain firm with that.

What we have here is a game of "semantics". You "feel" a certain you shopped around for a source that would support what you feel. That's neat and dandy for that warm and cozy feeling inside...but it's NOT good debate or discussion protocol. It's an invalid move against all that is logical.

I said in my earlier post that for there to be any real kind of "discussion" or "debate"...there has to be some central point to the issue, and you can say what you will, but the fact remains that the entire Universe is NOT "Spiritual"....they are "NOT" God faring....and therefore anything in that vein CANNOT be used as a respectable defense.

You said it all yourself. You looked looked there.....there were nuances of difference in meaning from one source to the what makes you think that the "religious" meaning has any prominence over the others?

To the best of my recollection, I have never read the so called "disclaimer" you speak of...although I do believe you. However, it's not an important issue where I stand as I DO NOT and DID NOT and have NEVER used a dictionary to think for me. *LOL*

I repeat, I used the dictionary to illustrate that the meaning that YOU were attributing to the word was just NOT the global be all and end all.....and it remains that way.

Yes! The issue (which we seemed to digress severly from) is a serious one!!!! That was precisely my point. We agree there. We do however have vastly differences of opinion as to what that seriousness connotates and how to express it.

I'm as ~Spiritually~ inclined as the day is long. Must more so actually *LOL* I have never denied that. HOWEVER, when discussing and debating I do not use language which is part of the lexicon of a splinter group.

On a personal note: I'm glad that you took and enjoyed your course on lexiconography. I'm sure is WAS quite interested. However, being that I too just finished a course (which just happened in the Philosophy of Ethics) while in the pursuit of attaining my Psychology Degree, I know full and well all of the basic Philosophical mores and the upshot is that one CANNOT "purely" site as example (for a stance)....words which do not have UNIVERSAL meaning!

It just doesn't wash!

In closing I'd just like to make one more point. I still consider the whole Bill Clinton affair a SCANDAL. I did, I do, and I always will. I consider it that personally, and I think by now that I have proved that linguistically as well as Philosophically, it's a very valid statement. I'd furthermore like to point out that I personally have NEVER "snickered" over this whole thing....not one iota!

I said it at the onset of our discussions...and I'll say it again. It was a disgrace and a scandal. Shame Shame on the finger pointers (the majority of which are of dubious character themselves) and shame, shame on those who thought it was funny.

In my estimation, there wasn't ONE "funny" thing about this whole issue.

JB...You're obviously a very intelligent man and I have enjoyed this reparte with you. I hope that you will read this post and come to understand what I'm saying....but should the situation end up being contrary to that...

I guess in the ~Spirit~ of StatenIsland comraderie....we can just say we disagree...and move on!


I have always respected you....and I have always enjoyed reading your posts. That remains true.

Now what's this you're asking...about Whoopi Goldberg's name????

Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.