[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Peter Eidt wrote:
>   
>> Peter2:
>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning,
>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made.
>>     
>
> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided.
>   

Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, 
members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and 
through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are 
meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the 
past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I 
have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who 
has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to 
follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of 
some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? 
Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about 
some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess.
Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC 
have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in 
answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not 
"indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything  through 
answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t 
know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever 
I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that 
they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the 
native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" 
or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. 
That's a tough act to follow.

> You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that 
> you're not breaking it. 

I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me 
different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ 
the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter).

> This is just too silly for words. 

I wholeheartedly agree.

> It is the 
> reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding 
> aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was 
> wrong to begin with.
>
>   
What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I 
follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue 
that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be 
read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange?