Re: Will Tony apologize?? (...Tony Cooper
|Subject||Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby)|
|Date||05/01/2014 16:56 (05/01/2014 10:56)|
|Followups||Sandman (1m) > Tony Cooper|
On 1 May 2014 14:26:53 GMT, Sandman <email@example.com>wrote:
SandmanI did anticipate this type of reply. Once again, Popinjay has pulled out a dictionary and found a definition that he *thinks* supports his position, but does anything but that.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tony Cooper wrote:SandmanTony CooperEric StevensSandman
... and it is that to which you responded. Notice my use of the word 'implied'.
"imply" is somthing *I* do, "infer" is something *YOU* do. I didn't imply any such thing. Do you know how I know? Because I made the claim. You inferred it, and then claim I failed to substantiate something you only inferred.
Here we go again. Popinjay seems to think that he cannot imply something unless he intended to imply it.
imply verb (implies, implying, implied) [ with obj. ] indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference
The definition says nothing at all about intent. And, that is the area in which Popinjay is dead wrong. An implication can be made with or without the intent to include an implied meaning.
One has to wonder if Popinjay sees his statement that he knows he wasn't implying something because he wrote the words as being another clanger or not.
Does he say to himself "Oh, yeah, Tony's correct here but I mustn't admit it", or is he really capable enough of self-delusion to continue to think he's right?
Most of the objections we see regarding "imply" is where someone complains "But you implied that..." and the response is "I didn't intend to imply that". Inadvertent implication.
-- Tony Cooper - Orlando FL