| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:16 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sv31qFq12f0U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message
news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held notion
that semantic
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly
literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute any
universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM
PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise)
You keep saying that. I'm not, I think, the only reader who has shown
that the statement as it stands is fatally ambiguous in several
respects. But you don't want to know that.
|
Several people have incorrectly attempted to show gaps.
They have not yet done so correctly.
| Quote: |
Even if it were a valid counter-example, which it is not,a single
counter-example would not refute the general principle in the case of
language. For the umpteenth time, a language doesn't work like that,
and cannot be made to.
|
X can not ever occur.
Here is an example of X thus you are completely proven wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:25 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:f1mkm1d6glsr8d5ieu5n13dglqlcoiajgi@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:41:57 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4367FBF6.4DAB5584@verizon.net...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 01 Nov 2005, Peter Olcott wrote
[ ... ]
These proposed standards are primarily intended for lawyers
and scientists where it getting precise meaning specified
makes the most difference.
Ah, now I get it -- This is all a plot to take bread out of the mouths
of lawyers and their dependents. Please cease and desist
immediately. I like eating.
I'm currently being paid to research the history of a building so
that the lawyers can argue whether or not, in terms of certain
legislation, the building is or isn't a "house".
Now,, one would think that "house" isn't an ambiguous term, but it
is in legal circles. The definition of a "house" isn't ambiguous,
mind you -- the act defines it -- but whether building (a)
qualifies as a "house" is another matter, and it's not a linguistic
one.
Oy, could I tell you stories! Here's one:
I'm engaged in a major lawsuit right now in which a shipbuilder
contends that the contractual term "total price" equates to the entire
sum of money due it from the Navy, and the Navy contends that it
applies to each contracted-for ship separately. This matters because
the contract price for each ship is not a firm number; it increases as
the cost of the work increases, though not dollar for dollar (there's
a formula for sharing) and only up to a ceiling. There's also a
separate formula for additional price increases to take inflation into
effect. Calculating the actual compensable costs and the ceiling is
not an easy process, but it can be done. The contract provides for a
final calculation of total price after the ship has been delivered,
and that's when all the numbers get reconciled.
The shipbuilders's costs for ships 1 and 2 exceeded the ceiling, but
for ship 3 (the last under the contract) its costs were below the
ceiling. If the shipbuilder is right, it gets to aggregate the three
ships and set off the below-ceiling amount on ship 3 against the
over-ceiling costs on ships 1 and 2. There's only a couple of million
dollars at stake in this contract, but other, larger ones loom.
So okay, what does "total price" mean? Seems easy enough, doesn't it?
-- the aggregate price of all ships under the contract. But when you
read the contract, you discover that the original contract was for one
ship; the others were added later by the exercise of options. Worse,
the calculation of the original price for each ship comes down to a
last line that reads like this "Total Price -- $XXXXXXXXXX," Each
ship has its own total price. And each ship's final total price is
separately negotiated. Also, each ship was paid for out of a separate
annual appropriation. The shipbuilder is well aware that the Navy
cannot use funds appropriated for ship 1 to pay for ship 3, but this
is in essence what it's asking.
Some judge is going to decide what's right, and I'm not trying to tell
you that this case is open and shut in either direction. Quite the
contrary. But if you can get a major lawsuit going over the
definition of "total price," you can get it going over just about
anything. Nothing Peter Olcutt can do will even dent the volume of
litigation over such things -- or of anything else, for that matter.
But it is fun to watch him squirm.
If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.
The contract as described by Robert does have "per ship" cost
calculations. The question appears to be whether there are external
|
Was the term "price" explicitly defined in terms of these per ship calculations,
carefully excluding every other possible meaning of the term "price" ?
Within the entire scope of this document, and the agreement thus formed
the term "price" shall only be construed to mean the total amount of money
to be payable for each ship, on a ship by ship basis. The term "price" when
referring to a ship, will not ever be construed to mean anything at all what-so-ever
other than the monetary cost to the government of each ship on a ship by ship basis.
At no time what-so-ever will the term "price" ever be construed to mean any
possibly aggregation of any costs more than those for a single ship.
| Quote: | principles and rules that govern the interpretation of this contract.
This contract floats in a sea of laws, rules and precedents.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:00 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv31qFq12f0U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message
news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held
notion
that semantic
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly
literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute any
universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM
PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise)
You keep saying that. I'm not, I think, the only reader who has
shown
that the statement as it stands is fatally ambiguous in several
respects. But you don't want to know that.
Several people have incorrectly attempted to show gaps.
They have not yet done so correctly.
|
No. The objections raised, as far as I remember, were all perfectly
correct.
| Quote: |
Even if it were a valid counter-example, which it is not,a single
counter-example would not refute the general principle in the case
of
language. For the umpteenth time, a language doesn't work like
that,
and cannot be made to.
X can not ever occur.
Here is an example of X thus you are completely proven wrong.
|
No, again. I will not repeat what I have already written.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:24 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svfl1Fora1dU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv31qFq12f0U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message
news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held
notion
that semantic
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly
literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute any
universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM
PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise)
You keep saying that. I'm not, I think, the only reader who has
shown
that the statement as it stands is fatally ambiguous in several
respects. But you don't want to know that.
Several people have incorrectly attempted to show gaps.
They have not yet done so correctly.
No. The objections raised, as far as I remember, were all perfectly
correct.
Even if it were a valid counter-example, which it is not,a single
counter-example would not refute the general principle in the case
of
language. For the umpteenth time, a language doesn't work like
that,
and cannot be made to.
X can not ever occur.
Here is an example of X thus you are completely proven wrong.
No, again. I will not repeat what I have already written.
You just aren't very good at logic, I guess. |
X can not possibly exist.
Here is a Y that is an example of an X, thus the statement that X can not possibly exist is disproved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:28 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:41:57 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.
|
While we are on the subject of legal terms: what is the meaning (for
your ISO dictionary) of the word "reasonable" (as used in Common Law,
International Law, et al.)?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:52 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3svfl1Fora1dU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv31qFq12f0U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message
news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held
notion
that semantic
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly
literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute
any
universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM
PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise)
You keep saying that. I'm not, I think, the only reader who has
shown
that the statement as it stands is fatally ambiguous in several
respects. But you don't want to know that.
Several people have incorrectly attempted to show gaps.
They have not yet done so correctly.
No. The objections raised, as far as I remember, were all
perfectly
correct.
Even if it were a valid counter-example, which it is not,a
single
counter-example would not refute the general principle in the
case
of
language. For the umpteenth time, a language doesn't work like
that,
and cannot be made to.
X can not ever occur.
Here is an example of X thus you are completely proven wrong.
No, again. I will not repeat what I have already written.
You just aren't very good at logic, I guess.
X can not possibly exist.
Here is a Y that is an example of an X, thus the statement that X
can
not possibly exist is disproved.
|
Oh, no, not another repetition! Look, you asked what something meant,
and we _told_ you what it meant. Some of us even went to a little
trouble. We do know what we're talking about; but it'll do no harm if
you believe you know better. Go forth and multiply.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:51 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <6l3lm154i4a1tf7nptj9rus61d021ni873@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
<mail@peterduncanson.net> writes
| Quote: | On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:41:57 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.
While we are on the subject of legal terms: what is the meaning (for
your ISO dictionary) of the word "reasonable" (as used in Common Law,
International Law, et al.)?
|
'Reasonable' is a valuable word because it saves parliamentary
draughtsmen much treasury-controlled time having to define terms and it
makes lawyers rich. It's a word that holds out hope to even the most
hardened criminals. "Blowing the intruder's head off with a shotgun was
reasonable force, weren't it? He said 'e had a gun."
--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:06 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:6l3lm154i4a1tf7nptj9rus61d021ni873@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:41:57 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.
While we are on the subject of legal terms: what is the meaning (for
your ISO dictionary) of the word "reasonable" (as used in Common Law,
International Law, et al.)?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
The conclusion derived from correct reasoning.
When most people use this term "You aren't being reasonable"
What they are really saying is that "you aren't giving me what I
want".
The problem with the legal infrastructure is that all civil law
depends upon what a reasonable person would do. This is
the final criterion measure, yet this term is never defined. For
both of these reasons, I propose the above definition.
When one then needs further elaboration on what correct
reasoning is, we now have the foundation of the deductive
and inductive logical inference models.
So with this new definition, when one is accused of being
unreasonable, then one is required to provide the true
premises, and every step in the reasoning process, up
to the point where the decision is made, with no errors
or gaps anywhere in-between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
|
There is nothing outwith me for I am all.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:34:02 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Isaiah 66:1 (KJV) |
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool...
Reading this literally we must infer the Lord has physical
characteristics sufficiently similar to that of humans that he will
relax by sitting with his feet resting on a footstool. Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
The Lord might find greater relaxation by putting his feet on something
less mobile, unless, of course, he is using the earth as some sort of
exercise or massage machine.
I suspect a non-literal, figurative and metaphorical, interpretation is
likely to yield a much greater and more useful meaning.
Beware of literal interpretations.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none
else.
There is nothing outwith me for I am all.
|
Don't encourage him, FGS!
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1131095092.081002.96880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
There is nothing outwith me for I am all.
~Iain
That seems like agreement |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:n3mmm1pnshlvragfceadbfauuh3kqbljmq@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:34:02 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Isaiah 66:1 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool...
Reading this literally we must infer the Lord has physical
characteristics sufficiently similar to that of humans that he will
relax by sitting with his feet resting on a footstool. Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
The Lord might find greater relaxation by putting his feet on something
less mobile, unless, of course, he is using the earth as some sort of
exercise or massage machine.
I suspect a non-literal, figurative and metaphorical, interpretation is
likely to yield a much greater and more useful meaning.
Beware of literal interpretations.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
In this case it would seem so.
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <n3mmm1pnshlvragfceadbfauuh3kqbljmq@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
<mail@peterduncanson.net> writes
| Quote: | ... Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
|
Why should God elect to be enslaved by a force he invented?
--
James Follett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:31:57 +0000, JF <jf@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | X-No-Archive: yes
In message <n3mmm1pnshlvragfceadbfauuh3kqbljmq@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> writes
... Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
Why should God elect to be enslaved by a force he invented?
|
He has masochistic moods?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in