Reporter Presupposes Reader

Thought(s)?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thought(s)?

Bad reporter.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thought(s)?

Do you have a specific example in mind?


Reporters aren't the only people who presuppose their audience...

http://www.redstate.com/diary/lukematthews/2011/04/17/good-lord-ap-reporter-mocks-obama/

Originally posted by lemon lime
Do you have a specific example in mind?


Reporters aren't the only people who presuppose their audience...

http://www.redstate.com/diary/lukematthews/2011/04/17/good-lord-ap-reporter-mocks-obama/

Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?

Never mind the why, how can it be reported if no one is there to hear it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thought(s)?

Not necessarily. Some people don't even read their own diaries, let alone allow anyone else near them.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Never mind the why, how can it be reported if no one is there to hear it?

report
Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.

Giving an account does not actually require a recipient.

I am fairly sure most police reports never get read.

Originally posted by twhitehead

report
Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.

Giving an account does not actually require a recipient.

"Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?"

A reporter is someone.

Originally posted by twhitehead

report
Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.

Giving an account does not actually require a recipient.

Giving an account does not actually require a recipient.

But it does require the giver (who is the witness) of the account actually being there.

Originally posted by lemon lime
"Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?"

A reporter is someone.

I see I misunderstood your post. The 'it' in your post is ambiguous. I thought you meant '... no one is there to hear the report' where as you appear to have meant '... no one is there to hear the thing being reported'.
Although why you assumed the thing being reported was a sound, I am not sure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see I misunderstood your post. The 'it' in your post is ambiguous. I thought you meant '... no one is there to hear the report' where as you appear to have meant '... no one is there to hear the thing being reported'.
Although why you assumed the thing being reported was a sound, I am not sure.

You: Giving an account does not actually require a recipient.

KBH: "Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?"

The word 'it' refers to the word 'account' (of the event having been witnessed). The 'it' in my post was not my it, it was KBHs' it. The word 'account' came from you.

The point of my post is that I'm assuming someone (anyone) would not be a 'no one'. A giver of a report is not a no one. The giver of a report is a someone. I see the meaning of 'no one' as literal, and not as a value judgement.

Although why you assumed the thing being reported was a sound, I am not sure.

Why you assume I'm assuming the report was a sound is something only you can explain, because I made no such assumption.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see I misunderstood your post. The 'it' in your post is ambiguous. I thought you meant '... no one is there to hear the report' where as you appear to have meant '... no one is there to hear the thing being reported'.
Although why you assumed the thing being reported was a sound, I am not sure.

KBH: "Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?"

You: Although why you assumed the thing being reported was a sound, I am not sure.


Why you assume what KBH said is my assumption, I am not sure. But I think it may be because you lost track of who is saying what.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why you assume what KBH said is my assumption, I am not sure. But I think it may be because you lost track of who is saying what.

Correct. I lost track. I still have no idea what you were trying to say.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct. I lost track. I still have no idea what you were trying to say.

To say that no one was there is wrong if a reporter was there.

zero plus one does not equal zero