When some party attempts to communicate, there are conceptual differences amongst
People who won't distinguish amongst these are a bane<\/em>. They'll claim that they said<\/em> something that they didn't; that you<\/em> said something that you didn't, that their words meant<\/em> something that they couldn't<\/em>; that your<\/em> words meant something that they couldn't. They expect a declaration It's of course perfectly fair to admit<\/em> that one misspoke with Some of them are even more abusive, attempting to use One thing that I certainly like about the 'Net<\/abbr> (and about recording equipment) is that it has made it more difficult for people to refuse to acknowledge what they have or another party has actually said<\/em>. They'll still try, though. I've repeatedly participated in threads where someone has denied saying something when it's still in the display of the thread<\/em>. (And, oddly enough, it seems that I'm often the only person who catches this point. I don't presently have much of a theory as to why others so frequently do not.)<\/p> Setting aside those who won't<\/em> distinguish amongst these three, there are people who more innocently often don't<\/em> distinguish amongst them. I was provoked here to note the differences as they will be relevant to a later entry.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When some party attempts to communicate, there are conceptual differences amongst what symbols were transmittedwhat conceptual content is appropriately associated with those symbolswhat conceptual content the party desired to convey Put more colloquially, what someone literally said is one thingwhat the words mean is anotherwhat someone intended to say is still another though, ideally, perfect […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,720,318,4],"tags":[404,811,220,812,405,810],"class_list":["post-3547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-epistemology","category-ethics-philosophy","category-public","tag-eristicism","tag-meaning","tag-semantics","tag-semiotics","tag-sophistry","tag-symbols"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3547"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12717,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3547\/revisions\/12717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}That's not what I meant!<\/q> to shift all responsibility for misstatement to the other person. They expect to be able to declare
That's not what you said!<\/q> when it's exactly<\/em> what you said but not what they had thought you intended or not what they had wanted you to say.<\/p>
That's not what I meant!<\/q>, so long as one is not thus disavowing the responsibility for one's actual words. I'm writing of those who avoid responsibility by the device of refusing to acknowledge anything but intentions or supposèd intentions.<\/p>
That's not what I meant!<\/q> to smuggle ad hoc<\/span> revisions into their positions. By keeping obscured the difference between what was actually said<\/em> and what was intended, they can implicitly invoke the fact that intent is less<\/em> knowable than actual words, while keeping misstatement unthinkable<\/em>, so that the plausibility<\/em> that there was a misstatement cannot be examined.<\/p>