On 1/4/06, Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > >I'm pointing out one of various simple scenarios consistent with SKZB > > >being bound to here/now. Incidentally, it is not necessary that X be > > >an intermediary. > > Perhaps you would care to explain how Vlad could have arranged to have > > an "old fool" pay him money to tell stories if they never met face to > > face, and there was no intermediary involved? > > Look up "intermediary", then reread the scenario. Incidentally, your > sentence above is confused. I don't really want to involve myself in a linguistic controversy, but I can only understand your point if you're using a very narrow definition of "intermediary." Are you just being pedantic, or are you postulating e.g. that the "old fool" could have been an independent agent who resold the material to Brust the Translator? One definition from the OED: "Acting or of the nature of action between two persons, parties, etc.; serving as a means of interaction; mediatory." If the information gets from Vlad to Brust through the old fool, that definitely makes him intermediary. Max Wilson -- Be pretty if you are, Be witty if you can, But be cheerful if it kills you.