Re: This=That

Subject: Re: This=That
From: Glen Accardo <glen -at- SOFTINT -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:57:47 -0600

> Beverly Parks writes:

> > If one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then in
> > trial found to be not guilty, doesn't that make "not guilty"
> > equal to "innocent"? At what point did the person's status
> > change from "presumed innocent" to "not guilty." Why is there a
> > distinction?

Here is a nice word to express the above, blatantly stolen from
Anu Garg's word list: \'li-t-*-.te-z, 'lit-\ n or litotes [Gk litote-s, fr. litos
simple; akin to Gk leios smooth pl m more at LIME : understatement in
which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary (as in
"not a bad singer")

Thus, "not guilty" <> "innocent."

glen accardo glen -at- softint -dot- com
Software Interfaces, Inc. (713) 492-0707 x122
Houston, TX 77084

Did the Corinthians ever write back?

Previous by Author: Re: Making it readable from the start
Next by Author: TW Jobs - Chicago - software
Previous by Thread: Re: This=That
Next by Thread: Re: was tech wrtg skills, now teaching

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads