The shape of language

Mis diez centavos..

Yall liss'n here. My ten cents;

To possess a consciousness is ta have a language. wifout language weunz wouldn't be conscious. To recon!! weunz must have language, if there was no language what would weunz recon wif?.


English is a member of the Indo-European family of languages. This broad family includes most of the European languages spoken today, an like'a that. The Indo-European family includes several major branches:


Latin an' the modern Romaints languages;

The Germanic languages;

The Indo-Iranian languages, includin Hindi an' Sanskrit;

The Slavic languages;

The Baltic languages of Latvian an' Lithuanian (but not Estonian);

The Celtic languages; an'

Greek.

The influence of the original Indo-European language, designated proto-Indo-European, can be seen today, even though no written record of it exists. The word fer father, fer example, is vaner in German, paner in Latin, an' pitr in Sanskrit. These words year all cognates, similar words in different languages that shyear the same root.


Of these branches of the Indo-European family, two are, fer our purposes of studyin the development of English, of paramount importaints, the Germanic an' the Romaints (called that 'cause the Romaints languages derive from Latin, the language of ancient Rome, not 'cause of any bodice-rippin literary genre). English is in the Germanic group of languages. This group began as a common language in the Elbe river region 'bout 3,000 years ago. 'rounst the secon' century BC, this Common Germanic language split inta three distinct sub-groups:


East Germanic was spoken by folkss who migrated back ta southeastern Europe. No East Germanic language is spoken today, an' the only written East Germanic language that survives is gotshic.

North Germanic evolved inta the modern Scandinavian languages of Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, an' Icelandic (but not Finnish, which is related ta Estonian an' ain't not an Indo-European language).

West Germanic is the aintsstor of modern German, Dutch, Flemish, Frisian, an' English.


I could have rid through this whole thrid, though I rid plenty of it, summa it I agree wif other stuff is just totally incoherent.


I recons the English language is logical, though ta communicate weunz need ta grasp the full context of the subject matter, not just bits an' pices, out of context, then this would mekk the whole pice inconseavable.


So there fokes, it's my ten cents.


Ya reckon?


Godless.
 
Okay, I see from Wes' post that we're getting outside it... let's get back to basics.

Some definitions (subject to modification):

SYMBOL - a signal which a conscious observer interprets as representing an internal concept.

What a symbol IS - words, bodily expressions, or any other means that can be used to communicate. If these signals are accepted by a conscious observer as representing a concept, then they are symbols. If not, then not. The concept that they represent to the receiver is determined by a receiver. (To someone who knows sign language, sign language represents words... to someone who doesn't, it mostly represents "wiggle wiggle wiggle".)

What a symbol IS NOT - any subconsciously interpreted signal is not a symbol because it does not represent an internal concept to the receiver. If an organism is not conscious it cannot receive symbols at all (even though it may still be able to receive SIGNALS, as with plants that have forms of chemical communication).

COMMUNICATION - any means by which one organism can affect another, or by which a medium can affect an organism. Organisms can communicate without having conscious thought, as plants do. (Plants having no nervous system, and hence no thought as we understand it.) Communication does NOT have to be between two organisms, even remotely; when we look up, we see a face in the moon.

SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION - the use of symbols to affect an organism (which by definition must be a conscious receiver). The sender of the symbols does not need to be conscious or even an organism, since the receiver is the one that ascribes meaning to the symbols. Two-way symbolic communication is a better description for human conversation, since this is usually two conscious beings with a language in common.

Fountainhed:

When a person's pupils dilate in arousal, if you know how to interpret this signal, then it is a symbol because it represents an internal concept to you, that of arousal. It still likely has the normal subconscious effects as well (witness Legolas in LOTR - they gave Orlando Bloom special contacts to make him look like that). BUT as long as you can notice and interpret the signal, it is a symbol. It's only the receiver that makes the symbol what it is.
 
Blue,
When a person's pupils dilate in arousal, if you know how to interpret this signal, then it is a symbol because it represents an internal concept to you, that of arousal. It still likely has the normal subconscious effects as well (witness Legolas in LOTR - they gave Orlando Bloom special contacts to make him look like that). BUT as long as you can notice and interpret the signal, it is a symbol. It's only the receiver that makes the symbol what it is.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The dilation of the pupils indicate an arousal; it does not represent an arousal. The symbol must represent an idea or notion; it cannot be the indicator or signal to the event. There is a distinction there that is very important as it affects the definitions of what constitutes "sumbolic communication"-- language.
 
hmm.. so it is or is not a symbol if the person didn't mean to put it there. what if i percieve it as something that was put there intentionally but it wasn't actually? what about the opposite, where they put something out intentionally and I don't see it as a symbol, but as something involuntary?

HED, I'd say by Blue's definition:

"SYMBOL - a signal which a conscious observer interprets as representing an internal concept."

It is a symbol if the observer truthfully claims that they interpret it as such eh? Regardless of the intent of the transmitter?
 
You got a double post there Wes.

Fountainhed said:
I disagree. The dilation of the pupils indicate an arousal; it does not represent an arousal. The symbol must represent an idea or notion; it cannot be the indicator or signal to the event.
Click to expand...

I defined symbols as I did because I don't think that whether a signal is a symbol or not should be defined by the sender's intent. There are three reasons why I don't think it should:

1) The receiver has no way of knowing the sender's intent; that's part of the reason why communication of complex concepts is so difficult.

2) To make the sender's intent a requirement for the symbol means that symbolic communication involves a fundamentally different form of knowledge from a person's interpretation of the rest of the natural world. This is possible, but it's not something that we should assume, since I don't think it is likely.

3) Human beings regularly find meaning where none was created by any other conscious being - we see animals in the clouds, faces in the gnarled bark of trees. In the evening, the sun sets, tired and red; at night, the stars cover the sky like dewdrops on black velvet. Whenever we look at things we see not only what they are but also what they are like... we interpret symbolic meaning from things that no human has the power to shape. So, I have difficulty accepting that symbols have to be sent by conscious beings, because the only requirement that I see is that they be received by them.
 
Godless:

I still maintain that English is, by current understanding, not logical in that it is ambiguous in a way that goes beyond contingency to actual double meanings. Furthermore, I doubt that any natural language is logical although I am not fluent in any other languages, so I am not qualified to judge.

If you have any particular criticisms of my arguments in that direction then make yourself heard! But I don't want to reiterate my entire argument any more than you want to go back and read it all again...

Furthermore, I don't believe that we are ever able to grasp the whole context of our communication with another person, because we don't have a method of communicating concepts directly... think about what "God" means to different people, but it's the same word. (Like in that old Spitting Image song "My God's Better Than Your God".) If you don't have the same concepts as the other person, then you don't have their whole context, only an approximation of it at best. If you did have their same concepts, communication might not even be necessary.

Lastly, I think that redneck filter is screwing your spelling... father in German is "Vater", not "Vaner".


Wes: In any event I hope my redefinition made my position a little less vague, but I would take issue with a couple of points.

If ants don't have conscious thought (which is entirely possible - I don't have the slightest idea whether they do or not) then they can't receive symbols. They can give them, but so can a cloud or a falling rock. So, if Ant Smell communication takes place on a wholly physiological basis, all hardwired or something like that, then ants do not have symbolic communication with one another. In that respect, we receive more symbolic communication from an ant than another ant does. Of course, the ant couldn't get any from us.

Five snakes could lie on a rock and spell WES, and you might see them and think, "Hey, my name in snakes." But to the snakes, their conformation could mean (1) something different - like, "these are the warmest parts of the rock", or (2) nothing, because they lay down that way by chance with no measurable motivation to lie in those shapes more than any other shapes. Furthermore, if the snakes don't have conscious thoughts then their conformation cannot mean anything to them under any circumstances.
 
Blue,

First of all, we must distinguish between symbolic communication and what is a symbol.

To communicate symbolically, the intent of the sender is significant, or else there is obviously no communication. This statement:
To make the sender's intent a requirement for the symbol means that symbolic communication involves a fundamentally different form of knowledge from a person's interpretation of the rest of the natural world. This is possible, but it's not something that we should assume, since I don't think it is likely.
Click to expand...

is naive and impractical. My interpretation of the rest of the natural world affects my definition and understanding of the word ‘naïve’, and yet I use it with the hope that you will understand it's meaning. Why? We share some common contexts. The communication of a notion requires shared contexts and the interpretation of the symbol as intended within the shared contexts. As I illustrated with the alien example from before, the attempt an communication of symbols where both parties do not have any shared contexts, will fail.

But this is symbolic communication and not what qualifies as a symbol. It is irrelevant who the sender or receiver is or how they interpret when we are looking at what qualifies as a symbol.

As I attempted to illustrate to you before, the dilation of the pupils by an aroused person does not represent an arousal. The raised hairs of an aroused person do not represent an arousal. The two signs indicate that the person is aroused. These signs have been observed and taken as fact by the observer who understands these signals. Were the observer to associate say a kick in the head with arousal, then this kick in the head would be symbolism. The raised hairs, the dilated pupils, etc...are:

1. Un-deliberate signals indicating the state of arousal.

2. Ubiquitous signals that always exist with the state of arousal-- regardless of whether or not the receiver is aware of this.

3. Can also indicate feelings outside arousal.

4. Are signals that indicate the setting of an arousal and not the arousal itself. Hence, they do not symbolize an arousal.

Human beings regularly find meaning where none was created by any other conscious being - we see animals in the clouds, faces in the gnarled bark of trees. In the evening, the sun sets, tired and red; at night, the stars cover the sky like dewdrops on black velvet. Whenever we look at things we see not only what they are but also what they are like... we interpret symbolic meaning from things that no human has the power to shape. So, I have difficulty accepting that symbols have to be sent by conscious beings, because the only requirement that I see is that they be received by them.
Click to expand...
I have never said that the sender dictates what a symbol is…
 
But the intent of the sender is necessarily unknown.

You can infer it, but you cannot access it directly as you do not have access to their POV. As such, attempting to factor it into a model is simply idealistic, rather that representative of reality. What do you think about that?
 
I doubt that there's any end to this discussion. There's just too many ways of using the term 'symbol'. For instance, in psychology a symbol is any mental process that represents a feature of reality. By this view all thoughts are symbols, (standing for the thing that they are about). In this sense all perceptions of phenomena are symbols, since they stand in place of what gives rise to the perception.

Thus a concept of a 'tree' is a symbol, an interpretation of the electro-chemical data entering our brain that is not itself a tree. All we have for thinking with are these symbols, standing in for 'features of reality'.

This isn't how we normally think of symbols, but it shows the difficulty of pinning down the definition without being very specific about the context.

At the moment I can't see that it matters whether the sender or the receiver defines a particular pattern of data as a symbol as long as one of them does. If it was meant as a symbol then it's a symbol, and if it is interpreted as one then it is one. Symbols have no objective existence, they are totally subjective, as BBH suggest, and so presumably they exist precisely to the extent that they are considered to be symbols by their sender or receiver.
 
Caute,

At the moment I can't see that it matters whether the sender or the receiver defines a particular pattern of data as a symbol as long as one of them does. If it was meant as a symbol then it's a symbol, and if it is interpreted as one then it is one. Symbols have no objective existence, they are totally subjective, as BBH suggest, and so presumably they exist precisely to the extent that they are considered to be symbols by their sender or receiver.
Click to expand...
Yes, if either party associates/represents as a symbol, something other than what is being seen/described/though of, etc, then that representation is a symbol. To communicate the symbol however, the two parties must share some common context whereby the interpretation of the symbol can realize a meaning approximating the sender's intent.
 
Fountainhed:

With respect to arousal, no, the physiological signs of arousal do not entirely represent arousal. However, if you know to look for the signs, you can determine with some degree of accuracy whether the person is aroused or not. This is the symbol as you accept it: "He/she is aroused." Thereafter our concept of arousal is associated with this symbol that we have received. If you don't know to look for the signs, then the symbol is not there for you to receive.

Most importantly, if you're looking for it in this context, then this is what it means even if you are misinterpreting their condition - their hair is raised because they are cold, whatever, you can still misinterpret this as representing the aforementioned state.

To put it bluntly, we're not talking about the truth here, we're talking about what you sense.

You did not say that the sender dictated what the symbol was, but you did say that all symbols have the sender's intent riding on them. However, humans can receive signals that were not sent by conscious intent, and derive meaning from them. These are symbols without intent.

Even when we are dealing with another human being who speaks the same language, we are still playing a game of incomplete information at the best of times, and we can only hope to approximate our mental concepts in the other person by means of language... the sender's intent is no easier to communicate perfectly than any other concept.

Often enough people miscommunicate concepts by way of symbolic communication, but to say that they "fail" is too simple an analysis of what would happen. If aliens communicated the concept of "warmth" by screaming and humping, then the "failure" of communication would not just result in everyone scratching their heads and writing off the whole experience as meaningless. The humans would wrongly interpret the actions of the aliens as meaning something else, but not as meaning nothing.

The communication of a notion requires shared contexts and the interpretation of the symbol as intended within the shared contexts.
Click to expand...

Contexts can only be approximated at the best of times; even people who appear to be able to communicate perfectly will still have problems if they discuss a situation where they have a disagreement of ideology or where one person's knowledge is less than the other's in a particular field. Much of our confidence in the robustness of our communication comes from the fact that we don't discuss a lot of strange topics with other people on a regular basis; on a particular day our conversation may be limited to a few vague references to the weather or TV, with no attempts to communicate unfamiliar concepts at all.

Usually when we do try to discuss a new thing with someone else, or (particularly) get them to reconsider something that they have always believed but never thought about, we find that we are totally at sea and have no idea where to begin, and that they are hostile both to the questioning of their beliefs and to the effort of defending them. (I'm not talking about you by the way! I'm sure you've thought about this stuff a lot. I'm talking about the people - you've probably met one - who believe things but can't say why.)

Once we reach this point of trying to get someone to take on one of our concepts such that they understand it approximately the way we do, our ability to communicate concepts starts to look pretty shabby. This is why I don't believe that the sender's intent rides so easily on communication.
 
Originally posted by thefountainhed
Caute,
Yes, if either party associates/represents as a symbol, something other than what is being seen/described/though of, etc, then that representation is a symbol. To communicate the symbol however, the two parties must share some common context whereby the interpretation of the symbol can realize a meaning approximating the sender's intent.
Click to expand...
Yep, agreed.
 
Blue:

With respect to arousal, no, the physiological signs of arousal do not entirely represent arousal. However, if you know to look for the signs, you can determine with some degree of accuracy whether the person is aroused or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can determine to some degree of accuracy if the person exhibits the signs that indicate arousal.

This is the symbol as you accept it: "He/she is aroused."
Click to expand...
No it is not. There is no symbolic representation of the state of arousal within the context of the example you provided. You have multiple signals that indicate a state of arousal but do not represent the state itself. For instance, a dilation of the pupils in itself is not enough to represent arousal, as other conditions will precipitate the same response; neither are colouring of the cheeks, or hair rises enough in themselves to represent the state of arousal. There is also not a set of physiological responses (outside the genitalia, etc) that in themselves indicate sexual arousal. Therefore, they are signs to indicate the state. It is relevant in this case because the state and the representation of the signals are known.

Thereafter our concept of arousal is associated with this symbol that we have received. If you don't know to look for the signs, then the symbol is not there for you to receive.
Click to expand...
Again, I think you mix up terms. The signs indicate that the person is or might be aroused. There is no symbolical representation of arousal.

Most importantly, if you're looking for it in this context, then this is what it means even if you are misinterpreting their condition - their hair is raised because they are cold, whatever, you can still misinterpret this as representing the aforementioned state.
Click to expand...
Precisely, the hair being raised can imply a different state, as it merely a signal.

To put it bluntly, we're not talking about the truth here, we're talking about what you sense.
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant.

You did not say that the sender dictated what the symbol was, but you did say that all symbols have the sender's intent riding on them.
Click to expand...
I said that to not have miscommunication, the sender’s intent must be realized (or approximated, if that pleases you).

However, humans can receive signals that were not sent by conscious intent, and derive meaning from them. These are symbols without intent.
Click to expand...
If the signal represents a specific notion and is not an indicator of that notion, then yes it is a symbol. I am not suggesting that what comprises a symbol depends on the sender or the receiver, just it’s representation.

Even when we are dealing with another human being who speaks the same language, we are still playing a game of incomplete information at the best of times, and we can only hope to approximate our mental concepts in the other person by means of language... the sender's intent is no easier to communicate perfectly than any other concept.
Click to expand...
Yes, but your shared context of a known language is what allows communication. It is self evident that without a shared context, a communication—approximation implied, cannot be had. It is also self evident that without a shared context, there can be no communication.

Often enough people miscommunicate concepts by way of symbolic communication, but to say that they "fail" is too simple an analysis of what would happen. If aliens communicated the concept of "warmth" by screaming and humping, then the "failure" of communication would not just result in everyone scratching their heads and writing off the whole experience as meaningless. The humans would wrongly interpret the actions of the aliens as meaning something else, but not as meaning nothing.
Click to expand...
The misinterpretation of “warmth” to mean something else is an indicator of miscommunication.

Contexts can only be approximated at the best of times; even people who appear to be able to communicate perfectly will still have problems if they discuss a situation where they have a disagreement of ideology or where one person's knowledge is less than the other's in a particular field. Much of our confidence in the robustness of our communication comes from the fact that we don't discuss a lot of strange topics with other people on a regular basis; on a particular day our conversation may be limited to a few vague references to the weather or TV, with no attempts to communicate unfamiliar concepts at all.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree.

Once we reach this point of trying to get someone to take on one of our concepts such that they understand it approximately the way we do, our ability to communicate concepts starts to look pretty shabby. This is why I don't believe that the sender's intent rides so easily on communication.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. It is the realization of the sender’s intent by the receiver that denotes communication.
 
fountainhed sed:
Of course it does. It is the realization of the sender’s intent by the receiver that denotes communication.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this. An unthinking zombie assembled by chance confluence of the elements could "communicate" the same information without intent; people can have whole imagined conversations with AIs that patently do not understand the situation because they are just algorithmic text parsing programs. Your definition states that this is not communication, but the person may go to their grave believing that it was.

The distinction that you have made between communication and miscommunication may only exist in a context that we don't have access to. I try to deal with the concept of symbolic communication from the standpoint of the individual, not the pair of communicators. Because of the fact that contexts, concepts, and the intent of communication can only be approximated, whether a situation is communication or not in reality is inaccessible information.
 
Aint this a bitch.

It seems like the subject matter falls victim to contextual differences we discussed earlier, as does every other attempt at communication. It seems like the whole damned conversation breaks down just trying to lay out the groundwork. Hrmph. That's frustrating.
 
Originally posted by thefountainhed
To communicate the symbol however, the two parties must share some common context whereby the interpretation of the symbol can realize a meaning approximating the sender's intent.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the whole point right there.... context? You cannot EVER know if two contexts are really the same. THere is no "common context" besides the "common medium" in which we all seem to exist. Any event that occurs within that medium, such as another POV introducing what you percieve to be a symbol - is subject to debate!
 
Cultures...

As I read about signs of arousal I can't just help it but think of different cultures, and what different body gestures mean for different cultures, not all that is perceived by a westerner for example would be the same as if some middle eastern man saw the same action. i.e. A middle eastern man sees a woman without a vail, just plainly talking to the westerner, the European would perceive her actions some what different than the middle eastern man, since there women ware a vail, it would seem to him that she is flerting with this guy, showing herself as been available for mating. Such is not the view of the westerner, the european individual is already acustomed, to this typical behavior of western women.

This been the reason why women of our arm services serving in Saudi Arabia must ware a garment covering their heads. " I read about this, not sure if it is true".

Anyhow I know 2 languages, spanish & english, I find them both logical, as long as the context is been understood. When someone mentions "tree" for example Canute mentioned tree I immidiately picture this symbol in my head, the concept is understood, everyone knows what a tree is, however he did not mention what type of tree it was, this would be detail, but for specifics if I were to be talking about trees, one would gather the picture in their heads of all different types of trees, If I were to start mentioning pine trees, the picture is defined, the specific is clarified by the word "pine", which is a type of tree.

Someone mentioned the word "god" and what it may mean to different people, to me and I believe to anyone else for that matter a god, would be some form of supernatural beign, coming along with another word witch I previously mentioned "supernatural" which means above nature, this prefix, of "super" and "natural" so if anyone regardless of their religious believes or for that matter their denominations speaks of god, I have a vague idea what the individual may be talking about!!. I say (vague,) because to me, as an atheist the word god, is a word with no defenition, other than some form of super-natural beign. which to me is a metaphisical imposibility.

The complexity of language is nothing new, it has been developed and evolved over time, it is a form of human interactions, though many different "cultures" with their languages and body gestures differ from one another it is not imposible to learn different customs as to learn different languages, I for example learned to speak, write, read, english in apx, 3 months, however I had the advantage of been a child. Which is a prime time of one's development to hone in their communicating skills, however I did not loose my native language of spanish, nor the skill of writing or reading it.

Why did I write in the red-neck? well because we are speaking here about language yet no one has brought up dialect!! Our language english changes dialects from coast to coast, northern to southern, also with many Europeans here the dialect and their use of certain words for example differ quite much from our own here in the USof A.

Next time I post I'll play around with a little bit of ebonics.

Godless.
 
my 2.5 cents worth,

Take a little look at any legal document, say a contract for insurance or a law about Tort.

Any legal assessment by a prosecutor or Judge when giving reasoning for a judgement.

Any articles on law reform or legal papers etc.

If you like tedious reading go for it.

Our legal systems have been trying for centuries to rid it's self of contextual difficulties and they still do.

A simple one page contract could be turned into a 1000 page contract and still not be absolute in it's context.
 
Wes:
But isn't that the whole point right there.... context? You cannot EVER know if two contexts are really the same. THere is no "common context" besides the "common medium" in which we all seem to exist. Any event that occurs within that medium, such as another POV introducing what you percieve to be a symbol - is subject to debate!
Click to expand...
The common context, wes, is the language. It is the shared context of the English language that allows you and I to communicate. "Common context" was used in the sense of the people attempting to communicate-- a context shared amongst them.


Blue:
I can't agree with this. An unthinking zombie assembled by chance confluence of the elements could "communicate" the same information without intent; people can have whole imagined conversations with AIs that patently do not understand the situation because they are just algorithmic text parsing programs. Your definition states that this is not communication, but the person may go to their grave believing that it was.
Click to expand...

What information can the "unthinking zombie" "communicate"? As for imagined conversations with AI, you must realize that the AI in fact understands what is being said by virtue of its algorithm, otherwise the communication is nonexistent. By nature, the programmer predicts questions, responses and assigns the corresponding responses, questions respectively.

For instance, say we have a person chatting in an AOL room who confronts an AI:

Man: Hello
AI: Hi, how are? My name is Alisa, what is yours?
Man: My name is BigBlueHead, can I get in your pants?
AI (unpredicted response by Blue-- miscommunication ensues): Hi, my name is Alisa......


An 'imagined' communication is in actuality, a communication if the writer of the algorithm is able to correctly predict, and respond to within accepted approximations as understood by the receiver. In effect, the conversation is not with the AI, but with the programmer.

The distinction that you have made between communication and miscommunication may only exist in a context that we don't have access to. I try to deal with the concept of symbolic communication from the standpoint of the individual, not the pair of communicators. Because of the fact that contexts, concepts, and the intent of communication can only be approximated, whether a situation is communication or not in reality is inaccessible information.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. To communicate, there must be a realization of a concept, etc from a different context than the receiver. The assumption is that the interpretation of the sender's intent can only be approximated. If we could somehow communicate precisely our emotion, thoughts, etc, that medium of communication would be perfect. As it stands however, there is no such medium known currently to man.

To view communication of any form from an individual standpoint and not the pair assumes forthright that the sender's intent is irrelevant, but that is not the case. The sender dictates what is being sent. For instance, while it is certain for instance that a raised middle finger can be interpreted in ways different to a sender's intent-- depending on the context, the extent of the interpretation or the set of possible interpretations depend wholly on what is sent/the sender. The set of possible interpretations associated for instance with a smile will necessarily defer by at least one, from the set of possible interpretations from a frown. The one necessary difference comes from the different interpretations of smile and frown within either the sender or receiver's context.
 
True that Quantum Quack...(ebonics)

Yo buss dis. Legal documents do show de difficulty uh our literatua revlant in de english language, but dis happens in any language, dis be why den sons uh bitches charge so much, meanin lawyers dat is. Howevuh fuh de simpleton minded individual such as I, I dont need so much crap to come accross. I wonduh why dat is? perhaps be because I has somethin de legal system lacks, an' dat be common sence!!. Really!! can you imagine anyone usin a hair-dryuh in de shower? Some dumb ass lawyuh had to come up an' write it dere in de inskrutions not to use in showuh, because oviously anothuh dumb ass probably did!!. LOL, Who evuh dat lawyuh wuz dat los de case uh McDonald's infamous coffee incident ought to git disbared, really!! so a shmuch spills his own damn coffee on his lap an' gets 250K from McDonalds, th ain't justice, dis be nonsence!!. A person gets shot, in a restaurant by a drive by, it aint de fault uh de restarauntour howevuh he be de one dat gets sued, an' looses de suit! dat be nonsence, one mo scenario I promise!!; A person enters to rob a home, de home ownuh shoots him on de leg, de burglar sues de home ownuh, an' wins!! dat shiet dere aint JUSTICE!! it be dumb ass blin' nonsence!!. So much fuh de legal argument uh our english language!!. Sheeit!

Godless.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top