I am absofrigginlutely friggin sick and friggin tired of free stuff!

Thanks Jeremy...it had to be said.

I just didn't want to be the one to say it.

(Have gotten into enough trouble around here already)

Art, um...well...oh gee...I don't (puzzled look :confused::confused

Forget it...I got nuthin.

You get a lot more than I do. And I actually subscribe to many lists

Gmail - the reason I switched to it a few years back is because it gets scraped WAY less than Hotmail or Yahoo. I did tests where I simply created new addresses on each. I did not post them or use them anywhere. Hotmail had spam in my box by the end of the second day. Yahoo within a week.

But I still get next to none in the Gmail box. I set these up well over a year ago too.

Maybe you just have bad luck

I wasn't trying to argue with you, just point out that even though I filled in my name, it doesn't automatically establish permission to use (or abuse) it. It assumes a level of familiarity that does not exist in the majority of cases.

I'm guessing that calling Art Webster "Arthur" has the same effect as someone calling me "Johnny".

And you'd be surprised at how many list builders think my my first name is either Sir or My Lord... :p

Governor Jesse "the Body" Ventura

Governor Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger

President George Clooney? The first two are bad enough, the last one is the stuff of nightmares...

Actually, it is not an attempt at being too familiar which causes the use of the first name - it is custom. Here in US we don't run via class system at all - yes there are classes, but it is extremely rude over here to notice the difference in class other than in a few settings, such as an elderly person being addressed as Mr. or Mrs. or in business settings. For conversational level social intercourse, first names are the norm, and it is a norm that is rapidly permeating the business world as well. You in countries used to more formal discourse will soon find that first names are becoming norm over there, too - and can look to the Internet and multi-cultural exposure for the cause/blame. Anyhow, that is why auto responders pick up first name instead of the prefix and last name. It would appear very stilted to most Americans to receive an email addressed to Mr. or Ms. instead of Hey, Jerry. It would cause us as much discomfort being addressed too formally in a given situation as it does for you to be addressed less formally than you are accustomed to.

It's easy to imagine that this custom would drive people in societies which are more class differentiated a bit nuts - uncomfortable at the least. But do note - it is an auto-responder that is setting the salutation, not a person so they have no way of varying their salutations per culture. If you feel truly uncomfortable having your first name used converstationally -- instead of providing a first name to an autoresponder - put your chosen prefix -- understanding when you do, that the email might just read only
"Dear Mr."

It's getting to be a very small world - we have to start learning to be comfortable with such minute differences in cultural ways or we are all going to go friggen batty.

Sal, Art's not using an analogy there. He's using a specialized meaning of the word "negative," which is normally not used in casual conversation. Huh? Where's the fallacy? Math IS a language.

Anyway, the math reference was mine, and intended more as a joke than to be taken seriously. The usage Art chose isn't precisely mathematical. It has a meaning very close to, "Having total meaning of less than nothing."

Note: Not "useful value" or "effective impact." Actual semantic content. Sort of like having a negative absolute temperature. It's not possible in any spoken language with which I'm familiar, and probably not possible for any language usable by human beings.

Clearly not the usage anyone else in the conversation would be likely to intend. That he knew this is clear from his later use of the word "positive" in reference to attitude.

This isn't really a fallacy of equivocation, because each side's comments are internally consistent in their usage of a chosen definition for the term. This is more like a word game on his part. And not one of the polite ones.


Paul

Josh, They have content that many/most would consider inaccurate, but the content exists and has meaning.

So there!


Paul

CD, The only objection I have to specific usage in this thread is Art's switch from the original to an alternative usage in order to say something that was technically correct, but made no sense in the original context.

I did point out that his statement, while seemingly game-playing, was accurate for one specialized usage of the word. Sal then disagreed with me, based on a different usage, more likely from an understanding learned in her training than from any active motive. I made no such claim. I merely pointed to 2 alternate entries for the word 'language,' to show that mathematics does, in fact, hold that status by some accepted definitions. There was no exclusion of any kind in that reference.

In fact, I agreed with the validity of every definition of the word "negative" that was used in this thread, and just pointed out that the changes in usage made for challenges based on the changing context.

Continuing to assert that "it's impossible for a statement to have less than zero meaning" is a separate thing from the matter of 'correctness.'


Paul

Excellent point and very clever.

I guess I should try complaining once in a while.

But what to complain about? :confused: