Several people have criticized Apple as having used weasel
language. I do not think that any such thing as this happened,
[...]
First of all, it is indisputable that they did use
weasel words. The wording of the "identified" sentence is both ambiguous and
misleading. A casual reading leads one to believe the sentence is an
unequivocal claim of innocence (a conclusion reached by both PJ and webster)
while a closer inspection shows that the sentence actually says very little of
substance.
The only question is whether or not those weasel words were used to
hide the truth or just used out of force of habit. I think you and I agree it
was more likely just force of habit.
I admit I added equal and opposite
spin to my post in the same way the "identified" sentence had spin. Apple's
sentence made them appear to be innocent without actually saying so. My post
made them appear to be guilty without actually saying so. It was meant to be an
ironic twist; doing back to them what they did to us so they could see what it
feels like.
Second, while your post may be more eloquent and more detailed
than mine, the gist is similar yet you seem to imply the previous posts on this
subject were wrong and you have discovered a new insightful way of looking at
it. I don't at all object to you building on previous posts. Your post is a
welcome addition. But I do object to simultaneously building on previous posts
and claiming they are wrong.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that
there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
