>Rich stated:
>
>". The farther out an apologist gets out on a limb, the more he/she seems
>to write."
>
>Is this why Rich is the volume leader on the Amps reflector? Is he
>admitting he is an apologist?
>
Let the reader decide.
>And, since I did not fully understand the meaning of the statement, I pulled
>out my 1500 page Consolidated-Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (A Library of
>Essential Knowledge, dated 1953, which I picked up an estate sale recently
>for 10 cents). I was not surprised to learn that an apologist is one who
>makes an apology.
>
apologist - n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a
doctrine, a policy, or an institution.
[American Heritage Dictionary ?1994]
>Now that I understand what an apologist is, Rich's statement makes less
>sense. Someone who is making an apology has the good sense not to get out
>too far on a limb. So, an apologist would never get far out. And, if he or
>she has the good sense to apologize, they would probably not write much.
Apologists do not apologize, they defend even beyond the bitter end. For
example, the org that burned c. 30k witches at the stake from 1481 to
1830 is currently defended by apologists who say it almost never
happened, and when it did, the toasters were wholly acting on the own..
>
>Rich, I am missing something. Are you making an apology?
no
> Are you claiming
>that Tom has aplogized?
no
>Or is it Eimac?
no
>I thought I understood your position, but now I am confused. Perhaps I need
>to spend more time reading my Library of Essential Knowledge and less time
>trying to understand what you are saying.
>
Maybe a more recent dictionary would be be a good investment? In 1953,
dictionaries defined "computers" as people who are employed in banks or
in accounting firms who used calculators.
cheers, Colin
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|