Re: A Real puzzler

["M.W. Poirier" poirmw@xxxxxxxx]

 Robert: You might want to check out the following:

  http://www.muller-godschalk.com/basic.html

 It shows the very symbol that I used, and it gives
 the exact meaning that I wanted to give to it.

 In any case, all I was suggesting is that the reader
 should not take me too seriously in that part of the
 message. Obviously, you misread the meaning. By the
 way, it is interesting to note that if you are right
 and we follow your recommedation, then something that
 we do quite naturally in casual conversation in one
 another's presence (when, for example, we say the
 exact opposite of what we mean, and then smile), cannot
 be expressed in an e-mail, without defeating the
 purpose of the contrary statement. And so, in an
 e-mail we have either to forego saying something that
 we would say in one another's presence, or warn the
 reader that we are about to say something that we want
 interpreted in a contrary way. I can see that being
 really amusing. ;-)

 M.W. Poirier


------
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Robert Holmgren wrote:

> ** Reply to message from Mark Garvey  on
> Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:02:56 -0400
>
>
> > The "smiley," for most of its existence, has explicitly
> > been nothing but a text-based element.
>
> News to me. Not a language I know. "Explicitly"? You're
> saying that ";-)" or ":)" distinctly expresses all that is
> meant? "Text", to me, is a structure created with words.
>
> -----------------------------
> Robert Holmgren
> holmgren@xxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------
>