![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheahttp://www.viruscomix.com/page500.html
There's a couple of people in my f-list that I think will find interest in that and they'll agree with it, but I'm not really sure that I do. I guess it depends on how you interpret the meaning of the last line and the conditions placed on the definitions.
Though FWIW, if I start placing conditions on the definitions, then the message is probably correct in a purely semantic sense and I can understand that interpretation, but I do think it's a technicality and that at the root, they are not 'right' but using terms that are too vague and casting a loose net to make their point.
One could make the counter argument that I am biased. I could not disagree with that assessment, but I would also point out that being biased doesn't make one inherently wrong. It just means to take their interpretations with a grain of salt.
From my perspective, 'normal' is like 'quality'. You know it when you see it.
There's a couple of people in my f-list that I think will find interest in that and they'll agree with it, but I'm not really sure that I do. I guess it depends on how you interpret the meaning of the last line and the conditions placed on the definitions.
Though FWIW, if I start placing conditions on the definitions, then the message is probably correct in a purely semantic sense and I can understand that interpretation, but I do think it's a technicality and that at the root, they are not 'right' but using terms that are too vague and casting a loose net to make their point.
One could make the counter argument that I am biased. I could not disagree with that assessment, but I would also point out that being biased doesn't make one inherently wrong. It just means to take their interpretations with a grain of salt.
From my perspective, 'normal' is like 'quality'. You know it when you see it.
