On 11/30/05, Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > 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. Well, perhaps there is some justice in what you say. > > > 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. *Exactly!!!!!* It is very nearly even as you have the honor to say. "Are you being sarcastic, dude?" "I don't even know anymore."