Party, sadly, you have returned to my remedial linguistics class for a top-up. You will recall a day or so ago that we had this exchange:
**********************
HPD: Party, this is your whole problem ... you can not distinguish between assumption and fact: You said:
PARTY: <<Fred, are you telling us that ZuluGroup.com's COO, Mr. Chmiel, formerly of Disney and Barnes and Noble, came on board, that he didn't first have a conversation with Mr. Green, formerly of Disney?
The fact [is] they do communicate>>
HPD: That is ASSUMPTION, not FACT ... it is not too late to learn the difference ...
PARTY: OK, Drifter. Going back and reviewing what I wrote, I concede you are correct. I should not have used the term "fact." Unfortunately, I used it as a progression of language, a transitional marker, if you will, rather than a fact of reality ... ???
**********************.
Party, after that exchange, I was reluctant to allow you to keep your licence to type. Any error of language could then be subsumed under the rubric of your so-called "transitional marker" . I let you off with that warning and your apparent contrition. Now you're back!
Party, this time you have defended yourself against Aleta's correction that she did not say JT posted three times a day. You executed a perfect circular proof, and might have got a 6.0 from your enthralled readers were it not for linguistic supervision from your humble probation officer. You now say, with a triple toe loop and a death spiral:
PARTY: But, knowing I saw the three figure somewhere -- evidenced by the fact I mentioned it several times ...
Well, for gosh darn Party, that means that the business plan of this collection of companies is of doubtful validity, "evidenced by the fact that I mentioned it several times!"
Your license to type is hereby restricted with the rider
"must type only under the supervision of a rational person"
In addition, you must post prominently at your workstation and as the header to all posts:
"Caution, long load; wide turns at any time; stops and starts without thinking; following too closely may be hazardous for your portfolio!"
|
