Strictly Speaking

Anteros,

I did not meant my comment to be taken litterally. You could try to parse it using online dictionaries, but it would be a futile exercise. It must be taken into the context of the ongoing audit at Judy’s and with the fact that it was in response to PDA’s comment.

In a nutshell, I was referring to the Chewbacca Defense described by WebHubTelescope there:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/26/doubt-has-been-eliminated/#comment-204076

“This makes no sense” is a comment argument by commenters with a litteralist bent who lack both charity and sportsmanship.

In the present case, what I meant was that the only thing left against PDA’s argument is that it makes no sense.

Resorting to litteral meaning makes for trivial wins. Just take any claim and try to understand it by parsing the words through online dictionaries. It’s impossible to miss a state where the comment makes no sense anymore.

That’s what I meant by “parsomatic” at Keith’s on a other thread we both know:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/05/22/have-you-had-enough-spin-yet/#comment-110339

Common knowledge is quite useful to communicate. Among useful knowlege there are pragmatic bits, e.g. context. Living without access to pragmatic is no fun. If you have any experience dealing with people on the autistic specter, you should know what I mean.

Strictly speaking, this is what “this makes no sense” meant.

(Source: http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/30/science-is-not-about-certainty/#comment-205085)