|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:10:23 GMT -5
Meaning is of course created by the reader, and if Silver took no insult at the insult then no insult actually occurred but that doesn't change the objective facts that a negative characterization of another's image is a form of insult and the characterization of another as having "exploded" is a negative characterization of another's image. This conversation was never about me, it was always about you, so the only thing you think you've revealed of or to me is in your imagination. Why is it negative in your eyes? It implies a lack of control on the part of the subject and it dramatizes the event in a condescending fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2014 1:33:34 GMT -5
Why is it negative in your eyes? It implies a lack of control on the part of the subject and it dramatizes the event in a condescending fashion. It is a common description of the release of emotion. There can never be implication in objective reading Laughter - if something 'implies' something else, ten that it always subjective. *point made*
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 7:39:36 GMT -5
It implies a lack of control on the part of the subject and it dramatizes the event in a condescending fashion. It is a common description of the release of emotion. There can never be implication in objective reading Laughter - if something 'implies' something else, ten that it always subjective. *point made* This is simply a re-iteration of the disagreement over the definition of objectivity projected onto a specific case.
|
|