Yeah, but Steve's writing is never vague. It is just that precise language, the usage in the vernacular of the common man, that keeps me coming back for more. Paarfi may be long-winded, but I feel Steve laboured long over each sentence to ensure it communicated exactly what he wanted. That's good, tight writing. Damn - I've swung over to the other side! -----Original Message----- From: David Silberstein [mailto:davids at kithrup.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:57 AM To: dragaera at dragaera.info Subject: Re: OT: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity (was: bois...) On 16 Aug 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >Chris Olson - SunPS <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> writes: > >> > We say, "I'm involved in a relationship with Susan." What does >> > "relationship" mean in that context? Do you know? Can you define it? >> >> In regards to this, would qualifying it be better? >> >> If one was to say "I have a purely sexual, open and honest >> relationship with Susan", would that be a more accurate use >> of the word? I'm actualy really curious about this one, as >> the word is used constantly, and I've always had trouble with >> it... > >"Relationship" is a case of deliberate vagueness, and as such is very >useful. Exactly. I find it interesting that Steve is so much in favor of flat, unambiguous statements when so much of his writing is about characters who often are quite deliberately ambiguous, or deliberately vague, or who use carefully worded statements to give a completely wrong impression of the facts (like Aerich's accusation to Shaltre). Sometimes one wishes to be Discreet.