From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:21:03 EST
Subject: A Supposed Attempt - Part  Two.



--part1_16c.19518309.2b596b4f_boundary
Content-Language: en

A Supposed Attempt  - Part  Two.


John:
Your illogical statement is in contradiction too because it is not disclosed
in the clause "there is no such thing as a 'supposed attempt'..

Jud:
What is "not disclosed" in the clause "there is no such thing as a 'supposed
attempt'..???
John:

The use of the term supposed appears to be unconventional here because the
term supposed is commonly used to provide 'clarification' about some
intention, that is it is an assertion about an attempt,
Jud:

But it was YOU who employed this - in your own words -  "unconventional"
adjective [which I would say was "illogical"] to describe the word "attempt"
not me. I was forced to repeat the word in order to address your confusion.
John:

 I 'suppose' I made an attempt does not mean that I did not make an attempt
but rather that I did make an attempt however successful.
Jud:

That is EXACTLTY what I have been saying!  But your original employment of
the adjective "supposed" does not address your own suppositions contained in
the phrase: "I suppose, " but MY suppositions [and the results of those
suppositions contained in the actual results [not "supposed" results] of my
attempting to, or making an attempt at providing an explanation to disclose
"the meaning of ousia" which can be viewed in the records.
John:

Now you are adding new information which is divergent. Now U are saying that
an attempt is conjectural. This is a qualifier which is entirely different as
a predicate than supposed.
Jud:

Oh no I am not! I am making the point that any criticism of my attempt, which
you can view in the records, may be conducted on the basis of whether the
results of the attempt, and the textual evidence brought forward and/or the
conclusions drawn from a consideration an attempt based primarily on
supposition or conjectural surmise rather than adequate evidence or is
soundly based. No new information has been added.
If an event has truly or actually occurred it is no longer suppositional -
only the cause or results of that event can be thrown open to supposition
There is no such thing as a "supposed" attempt and more that there is a
"supposed" fall by a woman from the top of the Empire States Building - if
that is - the fall [like my attempt] actually took place in space and time.
If the husband of the woman was later accused of pushing her off the top
floor, the jury's attention would be not on whether she "supposedly" fell off
the building, for as the tragedy was witnessed by hundreds of people there is
no question that the fall was an event that actually took place and was not=20a
"supposition."  The judge and jury would address the cause of the fall and
the results, whether it was accidental or a deliberate act of murder on
behalf of the husband. There was no "supposed" fall - the adjective
"supposed=E2=80=9D if employed by the press would not be addressing the actual
physical event of the woman's fall - but the public concern surrounding the
cause of that fall and the results of her falling - not the "supposed"
results of her fall which would be available as a court deposition by the
doctor responsible for pronouncing her DOA.



John:

If someone asks you if you made an attempt to fully answer the questions I
posed earlier, and U respond to me that "I suppose I did" then I would agree
with U.



Jud:

I think that any fair-minded person would agree that I have gone to
inordinate lengths to explain how the human mind deals with such linguistic
questions.  There is no "supposing" in this case [I leave that to you] as far
as I am concerned, for my answers and explanation are on the screen in front
of your very eyes for you to read.

John:
But now you are saying that your 'conjecture' about your own attempt cannot
exist or be ranked as a 'thing' of any validity

Jud:
And pray tell me - where do I say that? I have not and am not making any
"conjecture" regarding my attempt - the attempt was plainly made for all to
see and whether the results of that accomplished task or attempt have any
validity I leave to the judgement of others.

John:
The initial premise, 'there is no such thing as a 'supposed attempt' is a
judgement denoting a quality, where as the latter part of your statement is
different, that simply attempts (assuming they attain 'thinghood') are all
the same. You have entered new criteria which contradicts the previous
assertion.

Jud:
Absolute rubbish once more. My statement "there is no such thing as a
supposed attempt" is a not judgement denoting a quality of the of anything
because "supposition" or "supposedness" is not a "quality" of the act of an
attempt but of the RESULTS of the said attempt. If any act has truly taken
place in time and space, which is faithfully described by a verb or verbal
noun or adjective or adverb, then there can be no supposition as to the fact
that the act has taken place in time and space. If an actual attempt has in
truth been made, as was the case in my case, then there is no longer anything
 "suppositional" about it the act has been done.  It is a recorded essay - a
fact of life. All that you can do is to fruitlessly deny that an attempt took
place in the face of the overwhelming evidence that attempt which can be
produced to witnesses, and which is viewable in the records as my attempt or
essay concerning ousia.



John:

The use of the term 'supposed' is often used as a rhetorical device denoting
in short a supposition that an attempt was made. This, combined with your
judgement/assertion that there is no such thing contradicts the intention of
the last clause: "an attempt is an attempt' no matter whether it was
successful or not, which is also to say that even an intention is an attempt
that for some reason never came fruition. Grammar and logic are identical in
application....



Jud:

But the adjective "supposed=E2=80=9D relates and is rhetorically designed to refer to
and to criticise the RESULT or RESULTS of the attempt - not the actual ACTION
of the attempt, which was successfully carried out by me and is now to be
found in the list records. Whether you or any other member of this list
considers the RESULTS of my attempt to be successful or unsuccessful is
entirely a matter of their judgement but they will be judging my work as the
results of the completed action of my attempt in that I attempted something
in by attempting produced something which could be correctly referred to as
"Jud's attempt to disclose the meaning of ousia."



John:

Your illogical statement is in contradiction too because it is not disclosed
in the clause "there is no such thing as a 'supposed attempt'..



Jud:

What is "not disclosed" in the clause "there is no such thing as a 'supposed
attempt'..???



John:

The use of the term supposed appears to be unconventional here because the
term supposed is commonly used to provide 'clarification' about some
intention, that is it is an assertion about an attempt,



Jud:

But it was YOU who employed this - in your own words -  "unconventional"
adjective [which I would say was "illogical"] to describe the word "attempt"
not me. I was forced to repeat the word in order to address your confusion.

John:
 I 'suppose' I made an attempt does not mean that I did not make an attempt
but rather that I did make an attempt however successful.

Jud:
That is EXACTLTY what I have been saying!  But your original employment of
the adjective "supposed" does not address your own suppositions contained in
the phrase: "I suppose, " but MY suppositions [and the results of those
suppositions contained in the actual results [not "supposed" results] of my
attempting to, or making an attempt at providing an explanation to disclose
"the meaning of ousia" which can be viewed in the records.

John:
Now you are adding new information which is divergent. Now U are saying that
an attempt is conjectural. This is a qualifier which is entirely different as
a predicate than supposed.

Jud:
Oh no I am not! I am making the point that any criticism of my attempt, which
you can view in the records, may be conducted on the basis of whether the
results of the attempt, and the textual evidence brought forward and/or the
conclusions drawn from a consideration an attempt based primarily on
supposition or conjectural surmise rather than adequate evidence or is
soundly based. No new information has been added.
If an event has truly or actually occurred it is no longer suppositional -
only the cause or results of that event can be thrown open to supposition
There is no such thing as a "supposed" attempt and more that there is a
"supposed" fall by a woman from the top of the Empire States Building - if
that is - the fall [like my attempt] actually took place in space and time.
If the husband of the woman was later accused of pushing her off the top
floor, the jury's attention would be not on whether she "supposedly" fell off
the building, for as the tragedy was witnessed by hundreds of people there is
no question that the fall was an event that actually took place and was not=20a
"supposition."  The judge and jury would address the cause of the fall and
the results, whether it was accidental or a deliberate act of murder on
behalf of the husband. There was no "supposed" fall - the adjective
"supposed=E2=80=9D if employed by the press would not be addressing the actual
physical event of the woman's fall - but the public concern surrounding the
cause of that fall and the results of her falling - not the "supposed"
results of her fall which would be available as a court deposition by the
doctor responsible for pronouncing her DOA.



John:

If someone asks you if you made an attempt to fully answer the questions I
posed earlier, and U respond to me that "I suppose I did" then I would agree
with U.



Jud:

I think that any fair-minded person would agree that I have gone to
inordinate lengths to explain how the human mind deals with such linguistic
questions as completed events - in this case the event of somebody attempting
to carry out a certain act.  It must have become apparent to you that the
time and trouble that I have expended on what at first glance seemed to be
just bad grammar has for me expanded to take in a consideration of the way
that we transact and describe the realities of  past events as to their
causality and teleological dimensions There is no "supposing" in this case.
[I leave that to you] as far as I am concerned, for my answers and
explanation are on the screen in front of your very eyes for you to read.

John:
But now you are saying that your 'conjecture' about your own attempt cannot
exist or be ranked as a 'thing' of any validity
Jud:

And pray tell me - where do I say that? I have not and am not making any
"conjecture" regarding my attempt - the attempt was plainly made for all to
see it was a "happening which happened"  - it was not a supposed happening"
or even a so-called happening, and whether the results of that accomplished
task or attempt have any validity I leave to the judgement of others.

Jud Evans.

--part1_16c.19518309.2b596b4f_boundary

HTML VERSION: