Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: recycling trash




Jon,

You wrote:

> In addition, if more incidentally, the article phonetically known as
> "Plain Language In Documents And Paperwork Reduction Act" (PLIDAPRA)
> requires me to rephrase my "Genreic Disclaimer" in a plainer manner:
>
> | Who thinks that I'd be stealing his trash,
> | Has sooner likely been stealing my Peirce.

Per earlier communications between Sowa and Hayes, the word to use is
"recycle" not "steal" :-) This is also more environmentally correct, of
course.

> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > GENREIC DISCLAIMER
> >
> > 1.  The writer writes under the presumption that the substance,
> >     if any, of what he writes is characterizable under either
> >     one of two cases:
> >
> >     a.  Wholly derivative subsidiary to the works
> >         of one Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).
> >
> >     b.  Wrong.
> >
> > 2.  If the writer writes anything, the substance of which,
> >     if any, he presumes to originate with himself, he will
> >     be sure to make a special note of it, and to issue the
> >     appropriate notification.  Otherwise, the presumption
> >     may safely revert to that covered in Clause 1, above.
> >
> > 3.  If any other writer, or representative of a fictive
> >     entity, intelligent of otherwise, should presume to
> >     imagine that he, she, it sees in the writing of the
> >     present writer some reflection of his, her, its own
> >     original and proprietary thought, then the present
> >     writer suggests what is most likely the much safer
> >     presumption, in deed, he puts forth a claim as to
> >     what is most likely the much greater probability,
> >     that the other writer or representative exhibits
> >     thereby the lack of due diligence required to
> >     establish the truth of the matter, to wit,
> >     that the substance, if any, of what the
> >     other writer writes is characterizable
> >     under either one of two cases:
> >
> >     a.  Wholly derivative subsidiary to the works
> >         of one Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).
> >
> >     b.  Wrong.
> >

I suggest the word "derivative" be replaced by "derivable", since derivative
may indicate that it has actually been derived from, vs. the intended
meaning which seems to be that something is in principle derivable from the
works of one Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).

Cheers,

Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com