[r-t] Re: Real

[freepabs at freeuk.com]

> RAS said "I don't think PABS is disputing that a suitable composition

> of Bristol can be a "Real Double" composition.  What I think
> he is saying is that, the "Real" adjective [applies] to the [
adjective]
> Double..."
> 
> If this is so, why can't pabs say it for himself? It's not what he *
seemed*
> to be saying.

I didn't see the need - Richard's reply seemed perfectly adequate.

I wrote:
"Real Double Bob surely means it is really Double"

If that's not saying that I think the "Real" adjective [applies] to the 
[adjective] Double, what other interpretation would you put on it?

> If you write something, there is not necessarily a particular 
emphasis on
> any
> word unless you choose to give it one and it is therefore up to the 
reader
> to make whatever assumptions they like.

I see - that explains why when I wrote [Reply to Richard of 11th 
January]

"I don't propose to answer all of these points"

you assumed [Reply to pabs - in no particular order]

"If the quoted points are the only ones pabs wishes to take issue with, 
then it can only mean he must, at least, not disagree with me on the 
others."

-- 
regards
Philip