Subject:
|
Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 May 2000 19:41:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
604 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FuM8At.4sJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > [...] According to the _The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
> > Language, Third Edition_ it means "One that contributes something, such • as
> > money, to a cause or fund." The most applicable definition of the verb • fund
> > from the same source is "To furnish a fund for." So, when someone give
> > money to LUGNET (or to Todd and Suzanne for LUGNET) they are funding • LUGNET.
> > Period.
>
> The tense of the verb is critical. A statement indicating that someone
> "funds" (present) or "is funding" (present participle) something is very
> different from a statement indicating that someone "funded" (past) or "has
> funded" (past participle). Both of those in turn are very different from
> a statement indicaing that someone "has contributed funds" to something
> (only the latter being truly accurate in this case).
>
>
> > > I do not want to turn this into an issue,
> > It seems to already be an issue; I would judge from the responses of • Todd
> > and Dave.
>
> Let's please not make a big deal about this. Scott used the wrong tense • of
> a verb, that's all, and as a result he accidentally made a false
statement.
I have no intention of getting involved in semantics here, but I'd just like
to say that I 100% did not mean that LEGO 100% funds LUGNET. If anyone
thought that this is what I meant - oops.
What this shows that words can very easily be interpreted in different ways
by different people, and it is important to be clear and unambiguous. :-)
Scott A
>
>
> > > but my point was that the Lego
> > > donation, I assumed, was used to fund the further development of • Lugnet.
> > > Further to that, because LEGO does support LUGNET in this way, as you
> > > also do, it does "support"{1} Lugnet - as you also do?
> >
> > Clearly.
>
> In my mind, there is no evidence yet that "LEGO" (the entity, e.g., the
> company as a whole) supports LUGNET morally or otherwise. I do know that
> Brad Justus of the LEGO Direct sub-company of LEGO has made a financial
> contribution to LUGNET "on behalf of the LEGO Company." I must of course
> take this at face value since it is not yet evident that LUGNET is • anything
> to LEGO Direct beyond a chosen avenue for test-marketing its early plans.
> Thus, let's try not to blow this single donation all out of proportion.
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) I knew what you meant, and I didn't think you meant 100% funding. It's just very important to me to correct an ambiguity for something so important. In my mind, your statement "Lego funds Lugnet" (false) implied that LEGO has funded, funds, (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) The tense of the verb is critical. A statement indicating that someone "funds" (present) or "is funding" (present participle) something is very different from a statement indicating that someone "funded" (past) or "has funded" (past (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
