Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtel
There are plenty of people for whom that statement is not true. People with vision problems, for example.
|
So? My statement did not say that everyone could read it, only that it didn't need anything else in order to be read. (
"can" also has the sense of possibility, it doesn't have to insist on ability) There are all sorts of caveats about reading any sort of text (ability to read, language, eyesight, etc. etc. etc.), however presented, but they were irrelevant to the context. The only reason to bring them up is to distract from the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtel
Moreover, "real" and "tangible" or "physical" are by no means the same thing. I would not take offense when someone said they only read physical books or paper books. I do take offense when someone says they read real books (in a conversation involving ebooks), implying that ebooks are somehow not real. That's insulting, no matter the context. There are plenty of nonphysical things in the world that are considered real nevertheless. But for some reason ebooks are not real, because they're not physical? Sorry, but that's totally illogical to me.
|
I was explicit about the sense I was using specifically to try and save you having to repeat your prior objection.
If you insist on taking insult from the phrase "real book" then that's your prerogative. You certainly wouldn't be the first person that prefers to take insult rather than try to understand.