29 October 2002 - 10:02 a.m. My friend Wayne was in a philosophy class in college. The professor was making some kind of point which ended with, ". . .like an animal such as a fish, although I don't know if you can really call a fish an animal." Wayne looked around and saw some students nodding their heads in agreement. He then spoke up and said, "if a fish isn't an animal, what is it? A fungus?" Years later I told someone this story and they said, "well, it's really not an animal." It's amazing that two people can use such completely different definitions of a word. There's no question in my mind that a fish is an animal. There was no question in my friend's mind that a fish is not an animal. How do we communicate any more? Bill Clinton was right. It does matter what your definition of "is" is. For instance, when I go to poetry readings, every single reader says that their poem is entitled "Ode to Spam" or som other title. It's wrong. No poem is entitled. Poems are titled. Entitlements are rights given to individuals. Veterans are entitled to health care. People accused to a crime are entitled to a defense. The only thing that poems are entitled to is copyright protection. Yeah, everyone says, "well, you knew what I meant." Yeah, well, I can spell cat with a K and you'd know what I meant, but it's still wrong. So what do you think? Leave me a note if you want to explain your answer. (0) Comments?