[r-t] The null change

[John Camp]

At 18:42 on 01 January 2015, Matthew Frye wrote:

> Anyway, if your definition of a change includes the null change,
> then it must be allowed and so counted as a change; if your
> definition of a change does not include the null change then it is
> not allowed, and the question of whether to count it does not arise.

I would not presume to comment on the technical matters raised in this
somewhat extensive correspondence, but, as Matthew suggests, the
argument has all the signs of being one essentially based on different
definitions.  Such arguments are ultimately futile.  An awful lot of
arguments are of this kind.

I was engaged in a wholly pointless debate recently about whether
someone who has relinquished his holy orders still a priest.  I don't
think so but some do.  Was an Anglican priest ever a priest at all?  A
Roman Catholic would say no.  Is B.  Peachey a bishop?  (Perhaps we'd
better stop there).  The answer simply depends on what definition you
adopt.

You can argue about whether one definition is more convenient, or more
in keeping with conventional usage, than another, but you can't
conduct a rational argument of substance in the absence of agreement
about which definition you are using.  All you can do is huff and
puff.

JEC