🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6819@npri6.npri.com> eric@npri6.npri.com (Eric Williams) writes:

>(I'm surprised there's no group devoted to rhetoric... Maybe we
>don't get it. Maybe *I* don't get it. Oh, well...)
>
>Does anyone out there know of a rhetorical term (or maybe a logical
>one) for a statement that may be interpreted two different ways,
>with the result being the same basic meaning? For instance, a
>sign reads:
>
>      "No smoking section inside."

Not to stray too far from the topic ;-), but the main problem with
this one is that, in my opinion, it's phrased poorly.

"Non-smoking section inside" does *not* mean the same thing as "You
can't smoke in here!"  As any non-smoker can attest, the so-called
non-smoking sections in most restaurants are jokes.  There are often
tables right next to each other, one in the smoking section, and one
in the non-smoking section, that have no appreciable difference in air
quality.  

Why wait(ers/resses) can't understand that I *don't* want to sit there
is beyond me.  Feh.

Bye! ;-)

jas


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California