-=> On 06-26-04  11:24,  Robert Couture <=-
 -=> spoke to Michiel Van Der Vlist about need a feed <=-

 RC> Hello Michiel.

 RC> 26 Jun 04 08:24, you wrote to Mike Miller:
 
 MV|> It is. It is based on the fact that Robert does not know the
 MV|> difference between "not very smart" and "stupid".

 RC> Do enlighten me then.

  Let me try to say what I think Michiel is saying (and you are not
  seeing).   Let's say that there are five groups of people.  Group A
  is very stupid, group B is stupid, group C is average, group D is
  smart and group E is very smart.  When he says "not very smart" he
  means any from groups A, B, C or D -- which includes folks other than
  those who are stupid.

  I.e. there is a range of descriptors for intelligence (or actions) and
  the two categories of "very smart" and "stupid" do
not cover the full
  range.

  You are looking at the two descriptors as being the only possible
  ones, but other descriptors are possible, including some that are even
  still favorable (e.g. "smart" -- just not "very smart").

  Does that help bring an end to this argument over semantics?

                        dale (at) min (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)



... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:15:43, 27 Jun 2004
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01