No problem. Exhume away.

“However I am still hoping for a response from you to my last post … on the Peking Duck blog.”

Oops! Missed that. Let me take a look.

stuart

Apologies for exhuming such relatively trivial matters. I don’t really expect Froog to reply.

However I am still hoping for a response from you to my last post (#106 on 16/10) on the “Obama blows off the Dalai Lama” thread on the Peking Duck blog.

“If you use the word ‘judge’ without defining a specific, narrow meaning for it, then it can be taken to carry any or all of its meanings.”

I don’t agree. Often the context makes it clear that the more restricted meaning of the word “judge” is intended.

“Cuddles, how can you write such a ludicrous, self-contradicting sentence? Choosing to support something is a judgment of it…When you then do something which plainly is ‘judging’ in its most common and basic meaning, but imply that you are not ‘judging’ – you look ridiculous.”

I don’t agree with this either. Announcing that you support something while at the same time denying that you are judging that same thing is not necessarily self-contradictory. (I suppose you could argue that a decision to support something must entail at least a prior judgement that supporting that thing was a desirable course of action…but that wouldn’t constitute a judgement of the same something.)

With respect, I don’t see why you bothered to take in-ur-face fenqing to task for his allegedly self-contradictory sentence. It’s obvious from that sentence & others of his that English is not his first language. His problem was a use of English problem, not an inability to think clearly.