From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism Date: 1999/08/29 Message-ID: <3144940715549568@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 518577113 References: <3144404199547949@naggum.no> <37C17E00.D039AEBD@elwood.com> <_Mfw3.358$m84.6201@burlma1-snr2> <3144558626572658@naggum.no> <3144569678548813@naggum.no> <3144685738025120@naggum.no> <86hflm6whz.fsf@knotwell.ix.netcom.com> <3144735996390160@naggum.no> <87so55z8m1.fsf@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> <3144870163430091@naggum.no> <87hfljz52z.fsf@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> <3144909208610850@naggum.no> <3144921314874261@naggum.no> <87906uzh2r.fsf@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> mail-copies-to: never X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 935951919 2410 193.71.66.49 (29 Aug 1999 18:38:39 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 1999 18:38:39 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Francois-Rene Rideau | My post are long enough that I don't feel the need to make them even | longer by stating that obvious metaphors are such. do you seriously believe that I didn't see it as a metaphor? perhaps you don't understand what a metaphor is. it is a rhetoric device to communicate _several_ levels of similarity between otherwise disjoint and dissimilar phenomena, and not just any similarity, but _essential_ similarities. you can't choose just a few similarities, and ignore the fact that what you compare to has other qualities and pretend they don't matter. all methaphors break down at some point, because the phenomena are not in fact as similar as the metaphor tries to communicate that they are. when a metaphor breaks down before it has had a chance to show its function, it is a bad metaphor. when a metaphor is so rabidly dissimilar from anything reasonable associated with the other phenomenon, in this case the use of force and power, when the whole concept of contract and business is based on the premise of freedom of action and absence of force and power, the metaphor is no longer a metaphor, it is as good a rhetoric device as comparing someone's argument to something Hitler said -- regardless of whether he actually said it, which is no excuse at all. I'm reminded of the kind of people who are clearly inept at communication but who claim to be have been _ironic_ as soon as someone tries to take them seriously and struggle to understand what they try to say. there is no doubt that you consider vendors an evil force that cannot be controlled except by the means required to oust "almighty rulers": guns. that may be true for you, since you obviously can't argue your case, but it is a very strong argument for not talking to you again until and unless you prove that you are able to understand such differences. #:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers