Posted by Lou Pilder on December 25, 2006, at 13:01:42
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2006, at 15:17:24
> > appeals are unlikely because the appeal can only go to the the maker of the post and could be unlikely to overrule himself.
>
> He could be. So there could be feelings of disempowerment?
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
In my request to you for clarification, one of the parts was about your use of quotation marks in relation to them being used, or not, for another purpose than to quote the word. Your reply to me in question was,[...an "appeal" should go directly to me...].
There is a grammatical convention in relation to the use of quotes called {scare quotes}. They usually mean some form of irony or that the word is possibly an incorrect use of the word. It is something like {air quotes} when somone speaks and puts up their hands to show that the word in question has quotes around it.
If that is the case here, let us look at your reply to me.
You replied,[...He could be....],and,[...So there could be feelings of disempowerment?...].
My question that you replied to was,[...does that mean that the use of quotes is an idication that the administration here is a centralized,with autocratic control, administration where appeals are unlikely because the appeal can only go to the maker of the post and could be unlikely to overrule himself...].
Your reply,[...He could be..] has the grammatical structure that there is the potential that IMO the {he} is you. If that is the case, then is your use of quotes around {appeal} to be understood as some form of irony? If so, does that mean that you are saying that any appeal is futile to you because it {could be} that you would not overrule yourself?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/715846.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:715846
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/716311.html