There is a difference between the forest and the trees.

You blew the attempt at a snappy "answer", own up to it. You don't bury people who are not dead, and no amount of going outside the question or projecting and adding other "causes of their eventual demise" make "the answer" you gave more than a minor embarrassment for you.

It wasn't "legislative interpretation", it was a rhetorical question in any event. I was astounded that anyone tried to "answer" it, let alone a legal "expert", one seeking to apply "years" of reading opinions of judges trying to interpret legislative enactments.

.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...d-alive-turkey

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=15112540

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...-alive-record/

Oh look, DQ and Skall are having a spat.

Maybe you both could agree the sun comes up in the east?

LOL, ...... nah. he can have his "Last Word" post, ...... even if it is just another bad beat story to justify proposing burying "survivors" alive.

Regarding inground burial of the survivors, I guess you all have never heard of an above ground vault.

It would be technically wrong to say the sun "comes up."

It is not a spat. My actual intent was to demonstrate something about sophistry and it being alive and well in the modern age.

Note how correctly answering a question about the location of a proposed burial has now been turned around into an accusation that I proposed burying survivors alive. That is a perfect example of how sophists work.

I think the world would be a better place if most average folks had a better understanding of linguistics and those who use and twist language in order to deceive rather than inform or legitimately persuade (and I call these folks sophists).

Here are some basic links for further information:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/sophists/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language

Skallagrim

I just thought your brain "read" victims when you saw the word survivors.

I really can't tell if skallagrim is levelling or if he doesn't know that it was a joke.

either way, no amount of argument about the linguistic structure of the joke will make his answer any less funny.

Just call it a staking and coaching deal and I don't see how there's a problem.

Are you still allowed to live coach someone playing on Stars?

Whatever you call it, it probably violates TOS.

Like pretty much everyone else, of course it did - at first. Then I realized the "joke."

Then I thought about it some more and realized the answer was indeed the answer. So I posted it expecting to be called on it. And I was (though not by who I thought would do it first). And that gave me the opportunity to be really nitty about language and how we use it. And how some use it deceptively.

Hey ... poker news has been slow lately and every now and then I like to go back and think about philosophical things. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy, actually. And my major emphasis was linguistic philosophy.

I hope a few found it amusing, and I am glad at least one poster was "astounded."

Skallagrim

Donkey, this is your eighth grade English teacher Ms. Hagglebath. You're going to pull a hammy trying to construct sentences that don't end in "with".