On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Davdi Silverrock wrote: > On 11/29/05, Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Davdi Silverrock wrote: > > > > > I would prefer my own preferences, of course, since my idiosyncrasies > > > and eccentricities are more correct than anyone else's [1]. > > > > > > Beware conflating what is and what should be, assuming the latter exists. > > Speaking of "should be"s, well, there *should be* some way of > signalling facetiousness and humor. That's incorrect. > In the absence of such a construction, well, all that one can hope is > that the tautological outrageousness of a particular statement is > indeed its own signal of facetiousness. One can hope for all sorts of things, such as that ripostes in kind will be recognized as such.