Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (49380)	8/6/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If "repetitive" qualifies "redundant", and gives it greater specificity, than it is not itself redundant......

To: epicure who wrote (49380)	8/6/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

But as I note, some repetition IS appropriate, not superfluous. Take, for example, Churchill's famous "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing fields, we shall fight [forget the exact othe places he mentioned] we shall never surrender." The "we shall fight" each place is repetitive -- he could have said "We shall fight on the beaches, and landing fields, and never surrender" and the content would be identical. But the impact would NOT. The repetition is valuable and not at all redundant. Similarly, which is better: "We cannot consecrate, we cannot dedicate, we cannot hallow this ground" or "we cannot consecrate, dedicate, or hallow this ground."? Repetition can be valuable. Redundant repetition is repetition that is NOT valuable.