On Jan 31, 6:56 pm, thro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : DJensen <i_m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : If it's something on-going, it stands to reason that since I've woken
> : up it no longer has the same effect on me.
>
> My point is that that *doesn't* stand to reason.
> It may be a vaguely reasonable-sounding assumption, but that's not the
> same thing as "standing to reason", aiui.
My understanding of the idiom is that it's little more than a synonym
for reasonable or seemingly reasonable.
> There are plenty of (that is,
> at least a few) diseases that go spontaneously into remission
temporarily.
To me it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that a disease with only
one known symptom continues to be active once that symptom abates.
(Narcolepsy, interestingly, has five or more symptoms)
> And of course at least one well-known, ongoing sleep condition where
> waking up doesn't mean squat in terms of "immunity".
>
> In short, it doesn't seem to me to reduce "possibility of relapse"
> to "negligably unlikely".
It very well may not, but what options does that leave this character?
The only real way to test whether the wake up is temporary or he's now
immune is to fall asleep again, which will happen eventually anyway.
Might as well go out and see what there is to see.
--
DJensen
|
