Re: 'Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray' - questions

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:28:23 -0700, moviePig wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:11 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:44:26 -0700, moviePig wrote:

... There's things like
grammar and spelling that determine whether a sentence is correct or not.
That sentence, as written, is incorrect, regardless of what the "meaning"
of the sentence is.

Which sentence is correct, according to you?

Two and three is five.

That sentence, as written, is incorrect, regardless of what the "meaning"
of the sentence is.

Two and three are six.

This is actually a good example of what trotsky wrote, since he essentially
wrote this. Whether or not he *meant* to write "five" instead of "six" is
irrelevant, since the sentence, as written, is incorrect.

Of course, Trotsky might argue that, within a BluRay-vs.-HdDvd thread,
he stated, "...let's not [assume] DVDs are here to stay [because]
software is almost wholly unnecessary at this point...",

He *might*, but he couldn't, because he didn't write the sentence you
quote.

You don't think what I wrote quite fairly distills Trotsky's actual
text?

No.

Would you give an example of what I materially misrepresented?

Considering this thread is essentially nit-picking the exact phrasing of
his original post, *anything* different than the original post is a
misrepresentation. It's not like you even saved much space paraphrasing
his post instead of directly quoting it. For the record, I still think your
hypothetical rephrasing is incorrect, since it still doesn't specify *what*
software is unnecessary, meaning the sentence is saying that *all* software
is unnecessary.

Right. Trotsky assumed I'd infer from the context what meaning of
'software' he was using...

...which has no bearing on whether the sentence, as written, was correct.

just as he might also have offhandedly
referred nearby to 'digital compression', unconcerned I might think of
hitting my thumb with a hammer...

If you can give an example of "digital compression" ever being used to
refer to a hammer hitting a thumb, you may have a point. As it is,
"digital compression" has one accepting meaning, while "software" refers to
a multitude of things, so specificity is much more important, especially
since he was referring to another form of software as well.

For example, if I wrote "I found a video of a hammer hitting a finger
online, the digital compression is severe," that sentence would be
considered vaguely worded, since you can't tell if I'm talking about the
digital compression of the *video*, or digital compression of the *thumb*.

Trotsky thought that 'software' "had one [acceptable] meaning", in the
present context.

And he was wrong.

Although eliminating alternative meanings as
nonsensical (and thus unaccaptable) may have required some thought by
readers, it does appear he was right.

*Again*, whether or not people we able to decipher what he *meant* has no
bearing on whether his original sentence was *correct*.

But even if some reader found *two* legitimate interpretations for
'software' as used, that still doesn't make Trotsky wrong, but merely
vague ...

Vagueness is not a sign of correctness. In fact, it's the opposite of
that. And defining "software" to mean "prerecorded discs" is *not* a
legitimate interpretation, unless there are specific contextual modifying
qualifiers to the word.

(The point being that neither well-intentioned
readers nor failures in translation determine whether a writer's
correct.)

No, whether the sentence was written correctly determines whether the
writer's correct.

the fact that *everyone* understood him ...

Only you and I have stated that we understood what he *meant*.

Derek Janssen, too, if I'm not mistaken..

Obviously I meant "You, I, and Derek." Stop trying to substitute your own
preferred context as the "authoritative" one.

Not obviously, to me. Since, by 'everyone', I wasn't including ***
Cheney (obviously), I thought it meaningful that your disagreement
omitted one of the thread's four participants.

It's called "irony." Look up your past posts and try and spot what I was
referencing.

Of *course* we can. Either trotsky meant what he wrote, and thus provided
a self-contradictory situation where a form of software obsoletes *all*
software, including itself, or what trotsky wrote incorrectly stated what
he meant. It doesn't matter that we *know* what he meant to say, since in
either situation, the sentence, as written, is incorrect.

It's not sentences that are correct or incorrect, but.merely their
interpretations; sentences are but scratches on a page.

That's very zen, and in regards to most of the thinking world, very wrong.
There are standard and accepted ways of writing to make oneself understood.
To deviate from those methods is to write a sentence that is incorrect. If
we were to abandon the writer's responsibility to have what he writes meet
the reader at least half-way, then we'd literally have nothing but
scratches on a page, or the equivalent of a monkey pounding on keys for
electronic communication.

For example:
sfga tyrwa fgs hjoajkb fjsoujn d apoijfs mdapoiuen d pwajapjd gjklnad
hosgnlh tepusphf shfoh

If you can decipher that sentence in the next 700 years, then I'll concede
the argument.

Trotsky had a
"fact" in mind, and wrote a sentence *he* interpreted as representing
it... though he and we are *always* at the mercy of others'
interpretations and contexts.

Foremost, however, one should be at the mercy of the standard and accepted
forms of spelling, grammar, and writing.

but, regardless,
in order to assert that he's 'incorrect', you'll have to address the
original fact he had in mind.

No, I don't. I just have to address the sentence *as written*. *As
written*, the sentence made no sense. What was *intended* has no real
bearing, unless one is trying to *make* sense of a nonsensical statement.
At that point though, one has already determined the correctness of the
original writing.

This, btw, is why courteous
disagreements often begin with, "If I understand you..."

I did write "I think what you meant.." in my original reply.

Quite separately, though, you seem to persist that Trotsky's
(momentary) meaning for 'software' (i.e., prerecorded discs) has *no*
validating independent precedent despite our citing of just such
usage.

The only cite your provided showed precisely what trotsky's post lacked,
contextually modifying qualifiers in front of the word "software."
Trotsky, if I remember correctly, cited no real world usage, just some
dictionary definitions that he tried to use, unsuccessfully, to *prove*
that "physical media is the software," and that downloads are *not*
software.

...or that, although there is such precedent, Trotsky can't
allude to it.

I didn't say he can't, I'm saying he *didn't*. What he *could've* done is
irrelevant.

...or that, if he does stretch forth and allude to it....

Again, what he *could've* done is irrelevant. The fact is he *didn't*
allude to any specific usage of the word "software," and his usage was the
first actual usage of the word in the thread. Thus, there was *no* context
established in the thread as to what the word "software" would refer to
except its accepted general definitions, and trotsky provided no context
either.

-Jay
.