Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Aug 2005 14:54:22 -0400
In article <dctnlm$eae$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On 4-Aug-2005, docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> >> >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'.
>> >
>> >In this case, yes.
>>
>> And what criteria are being used to differentiate this case from other
>> cases?
>
>There are times when I can tell by tone of voice that the person who says "I
>believe..." isn't sure.
>
>In this case, I cannot judge that way and wouldn't want to presume he means
>anything except what he said.
In this case, Mr Brazee, Mr Dashwood seems to have made a statement which
had 'no restriction, exception or qualification' about 'a thing done'; by
these definitions he made a statement of absolute fact. To conclude that
he made a statement of belief appears to require an addition on the part
of the reader; that would be other than 'what he said'.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- References:
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Prev by Date: Re: Perceived dates
- Next by Date: Re: Sha-1 on cobol2
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|