Re: oh please.

Not entirely.  It is also dependent on the things she says in conjunction, and
all manner of other elements unique to the person speaking.   which is the whole
point of "context" in the first place:  to understand what the person meant.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of pcg
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:10 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

> It's bonkers for Palin to use definition #4 of the word when people
> could misinterpret her as using definition #1?

When there's a possibility that the misinterpretation could be dangerous? Yes, I
think that's bonkers. The national political climate has become heightened to
the point of being surreal, with violent language and imagery permeating even
the most mundane discussions. The divide between left and right is increasingly
defined by those who are "stealing America" and those whose guns will have to be
pried from their cold dead fingers. People with this level of ideological fervor
aren't famous for their ability to parse language, nor for their discernment of
philosophical boundaries.

Right now, I feel it is extremely important that we do not blur the lines
between political and spiritual ideologies. I'm not saying that Palin did
anything diabolical or malevolent, just lazy and dangerous.

> Usually people adapt to the given
> context, applying to most probably
> definition. I think that should apply
> here.

Context is entirely dependent on who is reading/hearing the comment.
If a comedian walks out of the House of Representatives and jovially says to the
security officers at the door, "I just murdered everyone in there," how far do
you think he would get? ;)

--
-pcg
 [email protected]

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot