Of course, the only way to be one hundred percent certain is to ask the author, but to claim everyone has the time or the inclination to do that is absurd.UncleBob wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:17 pmI'm saying that intent can be knowable if one follows up with the author. If the author says "X" and you suspect "Y" then one needs more evidence. However, one can never know apart from the author's input even if one can suspect. Now, one can treat the author as if their intention is "Y" even though they said "X" but that is on The Reader; it seldom reflects reality and generally tells other readers more about The Reader than the author or the author's intent.hugodrax wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:10 pmThat changes with the situation, wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's a difference between the rubrics for attempting to determine legislative intent and reading an article. Word choice and tone tell a lot.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is this: are you telling me not to try to determine intent because it is unknowable, or to be damned careful of being cocksure that I've determined the right intent?
The second, I get behind one hundred percent. Look at our own interactions--I've certainly been mistaken as to your intent before now. We've felt each other out on a few occasions too, to make sure we weren't trying to get under the other's skin.
The first, I abominate. It's essentially telling me to drop my gloves completely and take it on the chin and not respond. This approach only really works in an academic setting. It's a laboratory approach, for lack of a better term: without absolutely controlled conditions, it fails.
If I was to adopt this approach, I'd be constantly writing follow up letters for definition and never resolving a case. I'd be reading the newspaper and not bothering to try to understand the underlying motives of the author.
Now, on the other hand, I think tuttle's brother is making a great mistake assuming you wrote the article.
So you must not actually follow this rubric too closely, because you clearly have opinions and you clearly decide what you do and don't agree with. Intent is part of this. If you thought the authors intent was to make fun of left wing gun views, you wouldn't have posted the article, I think. Or are we to assume you do no more in posting an article than try to stir up debate?