This man DESPERATELY needs a dictionary

[Dave (imported)]

>>Apparently the USA doesn't has yet to corner the market on stupid politicians.

>>This one is a winner in the laugh department

>>

>>Even a "box of chocolates" couldn't help these guys

>>

Politician Becomes Butt of All Jokes After ‘Suppository’ Gaffe

by Andrew Kirell | 2:24 pm, August 12th, 2013

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/politician-b ... ory-gaffe/

Australia is truly on a roll lately.

In the last week alone, we’ve reported on Aussie politicians thinking Jews believe in Christ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-anti-i ... interview/ ), not being able to name a single point of their “six-point plan,” (http://www.mediaite.com/online/politici ... oint-plan/ )and dipping a penis in red wine for sexting purposes (http://www.mediaite.com/online/pol-resi ... -red-wine/ ).

Now add to that list an Australian politician making an scatological gaffe involving the medical drug delivery system typically inserted into one’s rectum.

While speaking at a political rally, Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott railed against current Prime Minster Kevin Rudd‘s penchant for centralized control.

The prime minister, Abbott said, should not be the “suppository of all wisdom.” Some of the rally’s attendees bursted out into laughter, as the Liberal Party leader clearly meant to say “repository” as opposed to the rectal laxative drug. Despite the mockery, Abbott did not seem to notice his error.

The Telegraph reported that Abbott’s gaffe quickly became a meme in Australia, shooting the hashtag #suppository into trending territory and making the Liberal leader the butt of many jokes (sorry, had to do it).

Watch the gaffe below, via Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

[Riverwind (imported)]

When a politician makes a gaffe no mater the party its a must to take a look at it and laugh. (suppositories?)

Note: all parties subject to such scorn and laughter.

River

[Buzz1221 (imported)]

but...how do we know it was a gaff? Perhaps it was intentional... Kind of a backdoor insult, so to speak.

[Dave (imported)]

but...how do we know it was a gaff? Perhaps it was intentional... Kind of a backdoor insult, so to speak.

I thought maybe one of his speechwriters or advisors wrote the statement and rather evilly knew he knew that he didn't know the word. He struck me as too earnest to be that sarcastic.

[janekane (imported)]

To make useful sense of word stumbles, I have found it useful to study biology, and neurobiology in particular. In his 2004 book, "Mind Time," physiologist Benjamin Libet describes the evidence supporting his view that "normal' (neurotypical may be a preferred word for those who are genuinely autistic) people make decisions unconsciously about half a second before the already-unconsciously-made decision arrives in the domain of conscious awareness, whereupon conscious awareness confabulates having made a decision it actually never made.

For people (those who are normally neurotypical?) who experience thought in words, and whose actual decisions are always first made outside conscious awareness, there can be mismatches between the meaning of the unconsciously made decision and the words onto which the decision is consciously mapped. Homonyms are especially prone to show up as mismatches between intended meaning(s) and the words consciously chosen. Such is the biology of "Freudian slips" as I can fathom them.

My attempted remedy has been thinking consciously in thoughts and not in words; however, I am not all that less prone to mangling the choosing of words than are people who consciously think they think in words in spite of the biological fact that thinking is actually only possible in thoughts and never actually possible in words alone; without thoughts, words have no referent.

For more detail, if anyone cares for more detail, please study the work of Charles Sanders Pierce, and the works of later semioticians and, perhaps especially, the recent works of biosemioticians.

What might happen to me were I to suppose that people who think in words are in a form of mental repose?

Is not supposing the elemental basis of suppositories, no less than reposing is the elemental basis of repositories?

Does a suppository tend to free the contents of a repository?

As for dictionaries, in a conventional general dictionary in which every word used in the dictionary is defined in the dictionary, such dictionaries are purely circularly self-referential in the absence of external referents.

As for dictionaries, such as law dictionaries in which many words used in legal definitions have no legal definitions, dictionaries that do not define all the words they contain are inherently open systems such that the meaning of a legal term can only be determined when some self-proclaimed legal authority makes up a definition after the fact of the happening of an event which garnered the attention of the legal authority; while all such legal interpretations are declaratively pre-facto, all such legal interpretations are inescapably procedurally post-facto in spite of the post facto fact that legal authorities almost invariably declare that their post-facto interpretation was of the finding of original (pre-facto) legislative intent, the fact that such is demonstrably false being deemed contempt of law as a pre-facto legal doctrine.

Ever study the works of H. L. A. Hart, Henry Black, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Richard Elkins, and other theorists of law? I have.

My study of theories of law informs me that there is, as yet, no biologically valid theory of law that is not only a theory espoused by the profession of law; but is also a biologically valid theory in use by the profession of law.

My grasp of biosemiotics study relentlessly informs me that the theory of law espoused by the profession of law repudiates and refutes the theory of law in use by the profession of law, such that those who are relegated to being subjects of the profession of law are captured in an unrelentingly merciless double bind.

Does the profession of law suppose it has the right and the power to hold humanity in the ever-tightening python-like coils of circularly nested forms of double bind repose from which the profession of law professes its being the remedy for that which it thus far only generates?

So, what is the remedy for words that deny their meanings? Freudian slips?

[Riverwind (imported)]

Its ether that JaneKane or he had a Bushism.

River

[Dave (imported)]

Sometimes I think Jane is a disciple of Alan Sokol.

[CaraiJewex (imported)]

A

ll parties subject to such scorn and laughter.