mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/27/85)
Cliff:
When Baba said that someone had said that there would be no lawyers, I
accepted his claim without due thought, and fell for his straw-man (oh the
shame!); in doing so, I, in essence, repeated his claim.
I'm very sorry for contributing to his libelling of you; it was not
intentional.
Sorry,
DKMcKbaba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/02/85)
> Cliff: > > When Baba said that someone had said that there would be no lawyers, I > accepted his claim without due thought, and fell for his straw-man (oh the > shame!); in doing so, I, in essence, repeated his claim. > I'm very sorry for contributing to his libelling of you; it was not > intentional. > > Sorry, > DKMcK The quote in question, once again: > Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it > would be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. > > Cliff We have heard a great deal from Cliff about what he *meant* to say, but there is a big difference between "entering into play" and "being the deciding factor". I can accept the notion that he chose his words poorly (he would appear to have been in a hurry at the time, to judge from the punctuation). Nonetheless, he wrote what he wrote, and I think that it should be clear that one natural way to parse the statement is "it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's skills would be required" i.e. that the society will require no lawyers. My statements, however pointed, have been made without intentional misrepresention, and I see no possibility that I have tarnished Cliff's sterling reputation. In short, while I may have ridiculed a statement that he erroneously made and/or that I misinterpreted, I have not libeled him. Thus DKMcK's accusation of libel on my part is false, and, because it was made in net.news, potentially libellous itself. Baba
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (03/03/85)
> We have heard a great deal from Cliff about what he *meant* to say, but > there is a big difference between "entering into play" and "being the > deciding factor". "enter the play" is quite ambiguous...you are right, I should have said that it would not be the deciding factor in the judgement, for it's meaning would be more obvious to you and others on the net. However, consider something other than prowess, call it factor x; if factor x is not the deciding factor in the rendering of the judgement, whether it "entered the play" would be irrelevant, for the decision would be the same, correct? Prowess, means more than skill, it means exceptional skill, so while the skill of all lawyers involved would be used, it would not be the exceptional (i.e. superior to average) skill that entered the play--there would be no place for it in a strictly business court (after all, if it is not going to be the deciding factor, why expend the energy?). "Enter the play" is an idiom, hence does not necessarily mean the concatenation of the definitions of "enter", "the" and "play." Remember too that there is a difference between what I should have said and what I meant to say. I meant to say what I did. I didn't realize that people would have such a hard time understanding what I said. You are right, I should bring the level down to the audience. > I can accept the notion that he chose his words > poorly (he would appear to have been in a hurry at the time, to judge > from the punctuation). Nonetheless, he wrote what he wrote, and I > think that it should be clear that one natural way to parse the > statement is "it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's skills would > be required" > i.e. that the society will require no lawyers. You are right, that is one natural way to parse that particular sentence, although that parse doesn't make much sense in the context of the letter and makes even less sense when you consider it was penned by a libertarian. Libertarians claim that many conflicts can be settled by civil courts...do you really think we expect whomever is to appear in court to drop everything he is doing to do all the associated paperwork? I think a more precise explanation of why people chose to interpret my sentence as a claim that there would be no lawyers in Libertaria is because they thought they had something easy to pick on (not quite building a straw man, just "finding" one and thumping it a bit). In fact, considering the number of articles that dealt with the claim of no lawyers in Lib. that appeared *after* my original clarification, it seems even more likely that people were not trying to look at the natural way to parse the language in either context of the article or my political views. > My statements, however pointed, have been made without intentional > misrepresention, and I see no possibility that I have tarnished Cliff's > sterling reputation. Good, I admit it was obviously not clear to the net in general, much less clear to those with opposing views who would like to tear apart anything I say... > In short, while I may have ridiculed a statement > that he erroneously made and/or that I misinterpreted, I have not > libeled him. I am not sure that anyone ever actually said that I had made the claim that there would be no lawyers in Libertaria--I just inferred that since my article had the closest claim that it was the cause of it all (especially since it the no lawyers citation was associated with no inflation and no unemployment, both of which I uphold as stated, except for the obvious (e.g. anyone can charge what they want, although there will be no buyers and that anyone that wants to be unemployed would not be prevented)). It irritates me much more that people would use one claim to tear down an entire set of arguments than the claim having my name on it (if people are *that* desperate for reasons to berate libertarian ideals, why don't they just post an article making one nonsense claim (how about everyone will live forever) about Libertaria and then tear it apart and let the rest of the libertarian arguments die as guilt by association...) Summary: I said what I meant to say, but it is obvious that if I had used a different wording, I could have avoided a lot of hassle. Baba, even though his article was posted significantly after my first clarification, did not intentionaly misrepresent my opinion. --Cliff