Re: "Shared" procedure division code

In article <dctdof$929$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On 4-Aug-2005, docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> >Precision isn't measured by the number of words being passed - it's measured
>> >by
>> >how effectively the data gets understood. Extra words do not make something
>> >precise unless more information was added. My argument is that no more
>> >information was added.
>>
>> It appears that 'no more information was added' when one equates 'It is'
>> with 'I believe it is'; I do not believe that this equating is, by any
>> means, a universal phenomenon.
>
>I never claimed it was universal. I claimed that in this particular case no
>further information was added.

The condition of 'no further information was added' is predicated on the
condition of equating 'It is' with 'I believe it is'.

>
>The main exception is when "I believe" doesn't really mean "I believe", but
>means "I could be wrong, but".

Meaning is the result of interpretation, as Wittgenstein had it; a red
banner can be interpreted as 'Long Live the Glorious Socialist
Revolution!' or 'Happy Wedding-Day!'

DD

.