Posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 12:31:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request to SLS for clarification-adsjutm » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 10:38:10
> Lou,
>
> I make it my business not to respond to such requests for clarification. I believe that I write clearly enough not to need the amplifications of my meanings.
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote,[...not to respond to requests for clarification...I write clearly enough...].
If your statement in question is to stand as to what the grammatical structure could purport, then I see what is written as to be what could be interpreted from its grammatical structure.
That then could mean that in your use of the part in your statement,{All that matters}, one could have the potential to think IMO that if {all that matters} could have the grammatical meaning of {regardless of the consequesnces} and then IMO the following could be thought;
A.taking a drug that makes one feel well, even if it could harm one's liver and kill them, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as to be advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statement in question.
B. taking a drug that could cause addiction, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statemet in question.
C. taking a drug that is illegal, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grmmmatical structure of the statement in question.
D. other meanings not listed
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:823865
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080420/msgs/824409.html