Runtu on Midgley's Essay re C.L. Hanson

[_Chap]

Maybe to Bot the definition of defame includes "express public disapproval of what a person has actually done." So, to call Jeffrey Dahmer a serial killer would have been defamation. To call Hitler a genocidal madman would have been defamation.

You get the idea.

Bot is a bit cleverer than that:

I assure you that I am not assassinating Bro. Midgley's character, nor do I sign on to everything he does. I like Santa Claus, but don't agree with everything he does. Lou is a character in a constellation of church characters. I see no need to defame him.

Note the technique, taught in forensic oratory 101: in commenting on what someone has said, you can make them seem bad by saying in a rather pained and shocked way:

"I see no need to do X" where X means something really unscrupulous and nasty. You don't say that the person you refer to has actually done X (which you know they have not). But by saying that, you leave the clear impression in the reader's mind that the person has done X - in this case defame Midgely. It's a neat but dirty little trick.

Someone who acts that way might be characterized as a word abuser.

[_Kishkumen]

Note the technique, taught in forensic oratory 101: in commenting on what someone has said, you can make them seem bad by saying in a rather pained and shocked way:

"I see no need to do X" where X means something really unscrupulous and nasty. You don't say that the person you refer to has actually done X (which you know they have not). But by saying that, you leave the clear impression in the reader's mind that the person has done X - in this case defame Midgely. It's a neat but dirty little trick.

Someone who acts that way might be characterized as a word abuser.

Oh yes. I know.

I just prefer to skip all of the lawyerly dancing around. It is tedious.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Oh yes. I know.

I just prefer to skip all of the lawyerly dancing around. It is tedious.

One person's word abuser is another person's sociopath.

[_DrW]

Oh yes. I know.

I just prefer to skip all of the lawyerly dancing around. It is tedious.

One person's word abuser is another person's sociopath.

Or, one person's word abuser is another person's apologist.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Or, one person's word abuser is another person's apologist.

Aren't they pretty much the same? Mormon apologetics is basically like Bill Clintons' "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

[_Chap]

Or, one person's word abuser is another person's apologist.

Aren't they pretty much the same? Mormon apologetics is basically like Bill Clintons' "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

I am sorry that Bill Clinton did not get to the real question, which is central to the interpretation of all scriptures imagined by poor struggling, scared, fleeting mankind in the brief interlude between our attaining consciousness and the outraged planet ridding itself of us:

What does 'mean' mean?