RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The `communicative a priori' does not require 
us vs them; it only requires one be *unaware* 
that a subject of discourse in the process of 
identification is already named.   Choice of 
order of method (choose the means to choose the 
means).

People are not of necessity or even proclivity, 
arbitrary; they are often uninformed or engaged 
in creating a community where membership is 
known by secret ring decoders.  Then they become 
dogmatic.  When two different groups that control 
the same resources have different ring decoders, 
a paralysis of decision ensues.

Which is why the lights in California may be 
out for awhile.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

But as in documents designed purely for human consumption, people have a
need to continuously invent new terms for otherwise common things. It is
both a way for members of a group to speak precisely about common knowledge
and as a barrier to entry for outsiders (for example medical terminology :-)