On May 3, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the material there is worthless.
How? "Cruft" refers to the content in question. I've contributed cruft. I have never taken it to have that connotation, and unlike many of us here, I have participated in AfD quite a bit in the past.
That kind of literalism allows me to be as stupid as the circumstances require. It's a fine rhetorical tactic.
Ah, you bastion of civility!
Using a more common example: The literal approach is that if I say that a comment you have made is a lie it is not the same as calling you a liar. The connotation that you are a liar is there but not the denotation.
That's a remarkably poor analogy. The term "lie", by denotation, means that whoever made the statement did so knowing it was false. You cannot call one of my statements a "lie" without directly and literally calling me a liar.
On the other hand, if you say that a comment I have made is simply untrue, you are not saying anything about my motivations or good faith. This is more analogous to referring to content as "cruft".