<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px; "><span class="hw" style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt; ">con·no·ta·tion</span> <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="13" height="21" style="margin-top: 1px; margin-right: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-left: 1px; "></object> <span class="pron" style="cursor: pointer; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(128, 158, 131); border-bottom-style: dashed; ">(k<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gif">n<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif"><img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif">-t<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gif"><img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif">sh<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif">n)</span><div class="pseg">
<i>n.</i><div class="ds-list" style="margin-left: 1cm; "><b>1. </b>The act or process of connoting.</div><div class="ds-list" style="margin-left: 1cm; "><b>2.</b><div class="sds-list" style="margin-left: 1cm; "><b>a. </b>An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: <span class="illustration" style="color: rgb(34, 102, 153); font-style: italic; ">Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.</span></div>
<div class="sds-list" style="margin-left: 1cm; "><b>b. </b>The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.</div></div><div class="ds-list" style="margin-left: 1cm; "><b>3. </b><i>Logic</i> The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term; intension.</div>
</div><hr align="left" class="hmshort" style="color: rgb(133, 168, 194); background-color: rgb(133, 168, 194); height: 1px; margin-bottom: 0px; width: 216px; "><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; ">
<b>con<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif">no·ta<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif">tive</b><i> adj.</i></div><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; ">
<b>con<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif">no·ta<img align="absbottom" src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif">tive·ly</b><i> adv.</i></div><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; ">
<i><br></i></div><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; "><i>I draw your attention to #2b and #3.</i></div><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; "><i>Or, in laymans terms: If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is.</i></div>
<div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; "><i><br></i></div><div class="runseg" style="margin-left: 0.5cm; margin-top: 3pt; "><i>Again, I congratulate you on the tone and level of analysis.</i></div>
</span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I was going to talk about whether or not Darrell had put me in a “bad<br>
light,” since he claimed to Keely that he did not. But it doesn’t seem<br>
fair for me to keep criticizing Darrell without first responding to<br>
some of his concerns.<br>
<br>
Darrell claimed that I made “at least 5 erroneous assertions” about<br>
him. Here are the quotes where he notes the 5 “erroneous assertions”.<br>
<br>
Nov 28 16:42:16: “I do find it interesting how you feel free to make<br>
accusations about me but are unwilling/able to back them up when<br>
pressed (Too summarize for our viewership you have made four<br>
unproven/untrue accusations about me: 1. I am unconcerned about these<br>
local churches. 2. I have criticized people that are. 3. I am only<br>
concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians. 4. I am a<br>
Christian-I'll concede this point, I'm a Protestant.). That's a lot of<br>
unwarranted assumptions you make about me.”<br>
<br>
Dec 1 00:17:15 “Too recap: I initially complained about how often<br>
things, such as the church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC.<br>
When you pressed in a later note I elaborated that unless we had new<br>
info or something changed, it seems like most of the key players<br>
already know where they stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion<br>
doesn't seem to be of benefit. That was the point where you made at<br>
least 5 erroneous assertions about me. Assertions which were downright<br>
silly, considering how little you know about me. Assertions, which<br>
I'll remind you, you never deigned to address. Even after I was kind<br>
enough to enumerate them for you, and request clarification.”<br>
<br>
To summarize, the “5 erroneous assertions” Darrell claims I made are:<br>
1. Darrell is unconcerned about local churches like Christ Church and<br>
Freeze Church.<br>
2. Darrell has criticized people that are concerned with these churches.<br>
3. Darrell is only concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians.<br>
4. Darrell is a Christian.<br>
5. Darrell won’t let folks on the V talk about CC.<br>
<br>
In some cases (1, 3, 4) I did not make such assertions. In other<br>
cases, though I did make assertions (2, 5) those claims were true and<br>
supported by arguments and evidence. Certainly by this point they’ve<br>
been supported by evidence.<br>
<br>
For instance, I never said Darrell was unconcerned about CC or FC. I<br>
said: “I can understand why you might not want to speak out” (Nov 28<br>
13:47:58) and “if you don't want to talk about it, fine. Don’t.” (Nov<br>
28 16:06:59)<br>
<br>
Nor did I ever assert that Darrell was a Christian, as in point (4). I<br>
said “Again, I'm certain it would interest you if the threatening<br>
remarks were made toward Christians. I would think you'd find it to be<br>
a good subject for public discussion.” (Nov 28 16:06:59) I also asked<br>
some rhetorical questions: “Or is it just that they don't say things<br>
about your religion? As long as they berate the [Mormons] and the<br>
Muslims it is OK?” (Nov 28 13:47:58) It doesn’t say anywhere in any of<br>
my posts that I think Darrell is a Christian, though I’m not surprised<br>
that he is! At most, one can assume that I didn’t think he was a<br>
Mormon or a Muslim. Again, the examples so far are cases where Darrell<br>
was reading things into my comments that I never actually asserted.<br>
<br>
Point (5) is either incorrect or confused. My complaint to Darrell<br>
isn’t that he won’t let me talk about CC, it is that he puts forth a<br>
set of criteria that he seems to think I and others should follow. But<br>
I don’t really give a rip that he’d prefer if I only talked about CC<br>
on the V under certain conditions – if there is new info (which I<br>
argued that there was), or if something changed about CC’s beliefs, or<br>
if the discussion benefited him or someone else (Dec 1 00:17:15).<br>
<br>
I don’t think it is appropriate for someone to tell someone else how<br>
to exercise their free speech rights, any more than it is appropriate<br>
to tell someone how to exercise their freedom of religion. I will<br>
respond the same either way: mind your own business. I have never, nor<br>
would I ever, tell Darrell what he should or shouldn’t say, especially<br>
when it came to something about which he felt passionate. I might<br>
disagree with him but I’d just let him go.<br>
<br>
As for claim (2), Darrell’s criticisms of folks on the V who comment<br>
about CC and NSA, I’ll just post some of the comments I posted<br>
yesterday in its support. They sound like criticisms to me. Again,<br>
Darrell might still think they are correct, even though they have yet<br>
to be supported, but that doesn’t mean that they are not CRITICISMS.<br>
They are pretty clearly criticisms and not just of me but of the V in<br>
general.<br>
<br>
“And, to clarify my position I did not complain about NSA criticism on<br>
V2020. I complained about the amount of NSA criticism on v2020. Too<br>
recap: I initially complained about how often things, such as the<br>
church list Tom posted, get linked back to CC. When you pressed in a<br>
later note I elaborated that unless we had new info or something<br>
changed, it seems like most of the key players already know where they<br>
stand. Thus, my belief that further discussion doesn’t seem to be of<br>
benefit.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
<br>
“I have no problem with NSA criticism, or praise for that matter, on<br>
V2020. I just wish the topic didn’t have to come up with such<br>
frequency.” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
<br>
“Do they [Christ Church and NSA] constantly post on Vision 2020 about<br>
the same thing over and over and over and over and over... ad<br>
infinitum? No, in fact they were pretty much run-off v2020 by folks<br>
that found them offensive (which would seem to violate points 1 AND 2<br>
of our Mission Statement).” (Dec 1 00:17:15)<br>
<br>
“None of those topics, or any other, get near the coverage on V2020<br>
that Christ Church does. Too make an analogy: V2020 is like a<br>
household water spigot for most topics. It is a fire hose for Christ<br>
Church topics. I’d simply like to see the fire hose turned down.”<br>
(Dec 1 18:11:24)<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote></div><br>