As you are so learned, and Chaïm and Ronald aren't here, perhaps you'd care to offer their more proper reading of Orwell. And as you're so learned, you'll immediately know my remark as a paraphrase, and of whom. Right? Because when I read a book, I do so in such a fashion as to repeat its argument, rather than assign others reading I couldn't do properly in the first place.
Nor can I understand how my reading of Orwell can be "naive". Wrong, maybe. Unless you mean that Orwell argued that these aspects of rhetoric can be deliberately manipulated to bring about otherwise unjustifiable outcomes? And that his chief purpose was to warn others of this manipulation and suggest danger signals of it? I am completely alert to that purpose, and you can be sure my neglect of that theme in my remarks here reflects a very deliberate desire to avoid suggesting anything so ugly of someone about whom I know nothing.
Now as to "moving the goal posts." What I said, from the very start, was that his construction was wrong _for_a_layman_, that it could be right _for_lawyers_, and that the former was here the important context. So my argument acknowledged the sense in which he could be right and dismissed it.
And so forth. I don't really care what you've taught. Bring an _argument_. Because your pompous _assertions_ don't do much more than piss me off.
Nah. Every claim he made is demonstrably incorrect, with the exception of his initial point that '"Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation.' This claim is also incorrect, strictly speaking, but if we're charitable and substitute 'occasionally' for 'often', it at least adds something to the discussion. What it doesn't do is show Thomas to be wrong. "Sense of" resolutions aren't legally binding and rarely, if ever, impact public-facing policy. They do, on occasion, impact government-facing policy, for example SCOTUS recess appointments. The rest of his comments are blather and, while worthy of a good chuckle, are unworthy of response.
"Sense of" clauses often determine the precise allocation of appropriated funds. Indeed _committee_reports_, which lack the dignity of a full vote of either House, or a Presidential signature, are treated by executive departments as determinative of public spending. They are the primary mechanism for designating "pork barrel" spending and thus are treated as the primary targets of lobbying efforts.
I know this because I have worked on those bills.
I do not know the legal or regulatory landscape around telecommunications in nearly such detail. But knowing the importance of such language in a REALLY significant corner, I would be very, very slow to regard any of it as without "impact [on] public facing policy." Not without a very thorough explanation of why exactly it was meaningless, and regarded as such generally throughout the industry.
Again, I don't know the industry. I do know that the making and implementation of law is a very complicated business, where the black and white readings of law do not yield the simple answers one might expect from logical analysis. And I know that in very important corners of government language like this, and still further from law than this, is effectively determinative of federal policy. So blanket claims that "sense of" language are without any real force are "demonstrably incorrect".
"Meno: And did you still not think [Gorgias] knew [what excellence was]?
"Socrates: I'm rather forgetful, Meno . . . maybe you know what he used to say. If so, remind me . . . . let's leave him out of it; he's not here after all."
From Plato's "Meno".
Here's another fun quote:
GLENDOWER.
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR.
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
As you are so learned, and Chaïm and Ronald aren't here, perhaps you'd care to offer their more proper reading of Orwell. And as you're so learned, you'll immediately know my remark as a paraphrase, and of whom. Right? Because when I read a book, I do so in such a fashion as to repeat its argument, rather than assign others reading I couldn't do properly in the first place.
Nor can I understand how my reading of Orwell can be "naive". Wrong, maybe. Unless you mean that Orwell argued that these aspects of rhetoric can be deliberately manipulated to bring about otherwise unjustifiable outcomes? And that his chief purpose was to warn others of this manipulation and suggest danger signals of it? I am completely alert to that purpose, and you can be sure my neglect of that theme in my remarks here reflects a very deliberate desire to avoid suggesting anything so ugly of someone about whom I know nothing.
Now as to "moving the goal posts." What I said, from the very start, was that his construction was wrong _for_a_layman_, that it could be right _for_lawyers_, and that the former was here the important context. So my argument acknowledged the sense in which he could be right and dismissed it.
And so forth. I don't really care what you've taught. Bring an _argument_. Because your pompous _assertions_ don't do much more than piss me off.