"Point well made/taken"?
lan...@adelphia.net
recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker makes well,
whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
According to my friend, this means that a well made point needn't be well
taken, for example, if the listener refuses to agree with the statement.
Is this correct?
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Schainbaum, Robert
lan...@adelphia.net wrote:
Point might be well made but not sufficient to make a dent. A point well taken
makes a dent. Neither concedes that the listener is convinced. The former
commends the form of argument, the latter allows that the argument has some
merit. Again, neither statement alone indicates that the listener has been
convinced.
James Follett
lan...@adelphia.net writes:
>I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a friend
>recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker makes well,
>whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
I once served on a jury at a trial in which counsel for the defence
made some convincing points about the innocence of his client, not
least being his presentation of irrefutable evidence that the defendant
was in another country when the crime was committed, but the entire jury
decided the defendant was guilty because we didn't like the cut of
his jib.
Does that illustrate the point?
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Stan Brown
>I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a friend
>recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker makes well,
>whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
>
>taken, for example, if the listener refuses to agree with the statement.
>
>Is this correct?
Yes, of course.
Look at it this way: no matter how good the explanation, the listener
might not understand it: she might be stupid, or prejudiced. or merely
inattentive.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
alt.usage.English intro and FAQs: http://go.to/aue
WWWebster online dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/mw/netdict.htm
more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm
Bill Fisher
> I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a friend
> recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker makes well,
> whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
[...]
And not just the listener. Don't you remember that
scene in the movie "Ivanhoe", at the jousts, when after
a particularly spectacular example of one-upmanship
was performed, half the crowd sang out "point well
made! point well made!" while the other half did
"point well taken! point well taken!"?
- Bill F.
Michael West
Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12b6ef7ed...@news.mindspring.com...
taken. But a friend
> >recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker
makes well,
> >whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
> >
needn't be well
> >taken, for example, if the listener refuses to agree with the
statement.
> >
> >Is this correct?
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> Look at it this way: no matter how good the explanation, the
listener
> might not understand it: she might be stupid, or prejudiced. or
merely
> inattentive.
>
That may be the odd case, but in my years of designing and
observing training and instruction, the problem is usually with
the explanation. It is a poor -- and usually mistaken --
explainer who says, "Oh well, they must be stupid."
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Anandashankar Mazumdar
"Michael West" <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
> Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.12b6ef7ed...@news.mindspring.com...
>> Look at it this way: no matter how good the explanation, the
>> listener might not understand it: she might be stupid, or
>> prejudiced. or merely inattentive.
> That may be the odd case, but in my years of designing and
> observing training and instruction, the problem is usually with
> the explanation. It is a poor -- and usually mistaken --
> explainer who says, "Oh well, they must be stupid."
Also, just because a point is well-made doesn't mean that it is
compelling. In other words, a well-made point might still be wrong.
Ananda
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
willia...@my-deja.com
lan...@adelphia.net wrote:
> I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a
> friend recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker
> makes well, whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
I think that probably most of us get the "point well taken" phrase
directly or indirectly from the world of parliamentary procedure, where
a point of order is ruled by the presiding officer as either "well
taken" or "not well taken". And that decision is based on the validity
of the point of order under the rules of parliamentary procedure,
regardless of the eloquence with which the point is made. Since the
presiding officer will probably have observed the very same set of facts
that the person raising the point of order has observed, his decision
doesn't depend much, if at all, on how effectively the member makes his
point. All the member has to do is _recognize_ that a rule has been
violated and be willing to bring that fact to the presiding officer's
attention.
In more general usage, to say that a point is well taken simply means
that the responder accepts the presenter's conclusions, regardless of
how well or poorly they are presented. However, in such an environment,
how well the presenter makes his point may influence whether it is
taken well.
Gary Williams
Matti Lamprhey
news:82lp28$63u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> ... Also, just because a point is well-made doesn't mean that it is
> compelling. In other words, a well-made point might still be wrong.
Also, just because a point is compelling it doesn't mean that it is right.
In other words, a well-made and compelling point might still be wrong.
Matti
Donna Richoux
> In article <x3434.2909$E4.2...@server2.news.adelphia.net>,
> lan...@adelphia.net wrote:
>
> > I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a
> > friend recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker
> > makes well, whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
>
> I think that probably most of us get the "point well taken" phrase
> directly or indirectly from the world of parliamentary procedure, where
> a point of order is ruled by the presiding officer as either "well
> taken" or "not well taken".
[snip]
Is that what it's from, parliamentary procedure? I was going to say that
I don't know "point well taken," that it's not a phrase of mine, I don't
say it, I'm not very familiar with it. I couldn't swear to you that
anybody *does* say it.
But I've heard "Point taken" from a few polite academic types, meaning
don't repeat yourself, I got it, enough, let's move on.
Accepting that there is such a phrase as "point well taken," does the
"well" mean "definitely" or "in a pleasant manner"?
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
nancy g.
> Accepting that there is such a phrase as "point well taken,"
> does the "well" mean "definitely" or "in a pleasant manner"?
There is indeed such a phrase; I know I've heard it, although
I can't quite recall whether in person or only in the movies or
on television.
I think it's typically used in situations where someone has
made a point or raised an objection that the original speaker
hadn't thought of, but now must admit is valid. It means
roughly the same thing as "Yes, I see what you're saying, and
you're right" -- but it's usually followed by a "However" as
the speaker goes on to explain why his point of view is still
the better one.
Michael West
Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1e2incp.10jtwke1ddsgzmN%tr...@euronet.nl...
does the
> "well" mean "definitely" or "in a pleasant manner"?
"Point taken" is a common conversational token here. It signifies
agreement to a correction or qualification of your earlier
statement -- something like, "Yes, that's a fair point, I hadn't
thought of that." In general, there is no suggestion of the
impatience you say you detect in the usage where you are.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> >
> > But I've heard "Point taken" from a few polite academic types,
> meaning
> > don't repeat yourself, I got it, enough, let's move on.
> >
> > Accepting that there is such a phrase as "point well taken,"
> does the
> > "well" mean "definitely" or "in a pleasant manner"?
>
>
> "Point taken" is a common conversational token here. It signifies
> agreement to a correction or qualification of your earlier
> statement -- something like, "Yes, that's a fair point, I hadn't
> thought of that." In general, there is no suggestion of the
> impatience you say you detect in the usage where you are.
You're right. I haven't heard it very often, and the impatience may have
been unique to the occasion, or may even have been an error in my
interpretation.
Best --- Donna Richoux
willia...@my-deja.com
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> Accepting that there is such a phrase as "point well taken," does the
> "well" mean "definitely" or "in a pleasant manner"?
I think the "well" is analogous to the "well" in "well received".
--Madame Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
--State your point of order.
--According to the rules of this house, a motion to billicate the
delendus is privileged relative to a motion to varifole a perpendiculus.
Therefore, my distinguished colleague may not debate the latter until a
vote be taken on the former.
--(Chair consults with parliamentarian). The gentleman's point is well
taken. A motion to billicate the delendus being undebatable, the chair
now puts the question on that motion. All in favor...
Ross Howard
Follett) wrote:
>In article <x3434.2909$E4.2...@server2.news.adelphia.net>
> lan...@adelphia.net writes:
>
>>I had always assumed that a point well made was one well taken. But a friend
>>recently argued that the the former is a point the speaker makes well,
>>whereas the latter is a point the listener takes well.
>
>I once served on a jury at a trial in which counsel for the defence
>made some convincing points about the innocence of his client, not
>least being his presentation of irrefutable evidence that the defendant
>was in another country when the crime was committed, but the entire jury
>decided the defendant was guilty because we didn't like the cut of
>his jib.
>
>Does that illustrate the point?
I once served on a jury at a trial of a youth whose defence was
that he had been "walking a girl home" from Shepherd's Bush to
Plaistow[1], having been at "some disco I forgot the name". On
his way back home to Deptford he suddenly felt tired, so *that's*
why PC Plod had found him cowering in that newsagent's doorway at
4 o'clock in the morning. He'd simply been "havin' a bit of a
rest, like." Of course, not having his glasses on him, he hadn't
noticed that the door had earlier been forced by some miscreant
and he was cowering among several dozen shards of glass, some of
which had levitated up into the folds of his anorak. Oh, and the
reason why his van was parked 50 yards away was just because he'd
lent it to a mate a couple of days before. No, he didn't know
where said mate lived -- if he'd known he was so close he
"wooden-a been woakin' oalawhy 'ome, wouldoy". And, well, yes,
you see, those 73 cartons of Benson & Hedges that the police
found in the back of the van must have been something to do with
his mate, who worked in "some club somewhere up West" and so was
"always buying lots of cigarrettes and that, innee" and whose
name he had unfortunately forgotten. Ah, like the girl's name,
then -- he'd forgotten? Well, not exactly, "'Cause I never ast
'er 'ers, didoy."
After deliberations lasting all of seven seconds, we quite
properly acquitted him. Our reasonable doubt? The prosecuting
barrister's wig quite miserably failed to disguise the "baldy in
denial" ear-parting-and-horizontal-strands-held-in-place-with-
half-a-jar-of-Brylcreem hairstyle that he had sported throughout
the proceedings and for which he showed no apparent remorse.
Ross Howard
Greybeard
wrote:
I'm astonished to learn that Brylcreem is still available (it occurs
to me just now that this may have happened a long time ago), and that
it comes in jars. Tubes were all that were available to me in my
youth.
But you were right to acquit; the prosecuting barrister (was he by any
chance a Q.C.? I'm trying to flesh out the bits that Rumpole leaves
vague) should have known that "a little dab'll do ya".
Regards,
Greybeard
Ross Howard
<jmes...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I'm astonished to learn that Brylcreem is still available (it occurs
>to me just now that this may have happened a long time ago), and that
>it comes in jars. Tubes were all that were available to me in my
>youth.
Well, when I were a lad (the '60s) it came in jars. At least my
only reference, Joe the Pole, had jars in his window, alongside
the display box containing the *de rigeur* "sontink for duh
weekend" (Joe's nickname had nothing to do with red and white
stripes, in case you were wondering).
The trial in question was in the mid '80s, so maybe you're right
and he used some yuppie gel to smear over the crime.
>But you were right to acquit; the prosecuting barrister (was he by any
>chance a Q.C.? I'm trying to flesh out the bits that Rumpole leaves
>vague) should have known that "a little dab'll do ya".
No, he wasn't a QC. This was the Inner London Crown Court on the
other side of the river, i.e. where QCs fear to tread. However,
the judge did go on to be bit famous, although I shan't identify
him so as not to make it too easy for anyone considering grassing
on me for perversion of the course of justice. Although there's
probably a ten-year statute of limitations on hair-brained
acquittals.
Ross Howard
LJBGVallee
BGV