Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 17:20 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This omits "reasonably" in a couple of places, and we've agreed that the
> whole thing hinges on that qualifier.
Aha, this seems to be an argument about the meaning of the word
"reasonably" (explaining why we're coming to different opinions on
this). I consider being "reasonably accessible" a weaker condition than
being "accessible", in the same way that "reasonably tall" is a weaker
condition than "tall". "reasonably accessible" does not mean "reasonable
and accessible", in my opinion. Googling define:reasonably gives me
'''to a moderately sufficient extent or degree; "pretty big"; "pretty
bad"; "jolly decent of him"; "the shoes are priced reasonably"; "he is
fairly ...''' as the first definition (the others are for the base word
"reasonable", which has a different meaning from the idiomatic
"reasonably"). I'd say that being accessible is a sufficient condition
for being reasonably accessible; but that a forum could, for instance,
be reasonably accessible without being completely accessible. This EF is
completely accessible, therefore fulfils the condition of being
reasonably accessible.
-- 
ais523

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss