 | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
