In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Frank Goenninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
>>>why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
>>>all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
>>>"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
>>>a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
>>>are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
>>>free.
>>
>> "Liberated" is a valid meaning of the word "free".
>
>No. It is a valid meaning of the word "freed".
Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
Free
(...)
"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
of parents, guardian, or master."
The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
"free".
As I do not read gnu.misc.discuss, I reinstated the previous bunch.
Apologies to those who may be annoyed at this.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
