Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observe the trend
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:29:56 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <3ptqtj9rd0l5jtht779bhok70daeeangai@4ax.com>
References: <3mabtj5mernnk3c1p5ldq4pdfj0avdb4is@4ax.com> <ok5dtj1615i6m77svtsjbbchg8l3m40qmc@4ax.com> <bavdtj97rgn68vv0kn1rnhn3m0vbmhmr2u@4ax.com> <8jrftj5bf9a2kieo18uccs2emcugbr2r57@4ax.com> <5thgtjtdallr1qmbf45e2bu6aumjbp7ddf@4ax.com> <34tktj58ii6084r0nnu2uakffiebok07e7@4ax.com> <0qjmtj1qjeusnk753a6l7amtmrg94nmhkp@4ax.com> <0pcntjtif02t8k7lod4fvv25fh6d9urj47@4ax.com> <vj8ptj18gsjhv04jv0gmnfkgd78s5flmod@4ax.com> <kpkqtjdq4431n5u0tehiujicgcrh5b9h4k@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="41793"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i99bHn1glO0/ic0nrBjPIzkMZ30=
Bytes: 6219

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:04:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:28:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:43:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:38:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>If the literal meaning of "literal" is irrelevant, the
>>>>phrase has no meaning and the accepted definition of the
>>>>word itself might as well be "a word means whatever I want
>>>>it to mean, no more, no less" a la Humpty Dumpty. It's
>>>>always been my understanding that agreement regarding
>>>>meaning is important for communication, but perhaps I was
>>>>mistaken.
>>>
>>>
>>>As this very topic shows, different people use "literal" to mean very
>>>different things, which is the case with almost all words.  That other
>>>people accept and use different meanings than you do doesn't make
>>>their meanings incorrect or inconsistent, or your meaning the only
>>>correct one.  I know you know this.
>>>
>>Of course. But if literally (sorry...) *any* meaning applies
>>and is equally valid, all meaning is lost. I tend to go with
>>the current dictionary definition as "correct", while
>>acknowledging that it changes over time, and that others may
>>use the word differently (the example I noted were
>>"literally Hitler" and "I literally died", both of which are
>>false usage according to the OED definition). I simply don't
>>accept a definition by which "literal" and "figurative" are
>>synonymous.
>>>
>>>More to the point, that isn't even my point, which you continue to
>>>conveniently ignore, as usual.  WRT the original context, and once
>>>again, my point remains: the meaning of "literal", whatever it may be,
>>>doesn't sensibly apply to any interpretations of Genesis texts, any
>>>more than does the meaning of "orange".
>>>
>>I didn't "conveniently ignore" it; it simply had no bearing
>>on the point I was trying to convey.
>>
>>And "as usual" was uncalled for, since I don't ignore points
>>which are relevant to my comments.
>
>
>The point you intended to convey, which you repeated, is that MarkE
>used "literally" with a different and therefore incorrect meaning than
>you use.  The point I conveyed, which you again conveniently ignore,
>as usual, is that "literally" doesn't sensibly apply to any
>interpretations of Genesis texts, regardless of the meaning being
>used.  That point literally bears directly on the point you say you
>were trying to convey.
>
I disagree that that has any relevance to what I wrote,
which was specifically not about content but about the
meaning of the word in general, but have it your way. Enjoy
the weekend.
>
>Your Humpty Dumpty reference is no more relevant to my point than is
>the meaning of "literal" and "orange" to Genesis texts, a point which
>you also conveniently ignore, as usual.  Apparently your only interest
>in this topic is to repeat ad nauseam that my point isn't relevant to
>your point.
>
It's not. And thanks for reminding me why I generally ignore
your posts.
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov