More about nothing
I don’t give any comfort to critic who cannot see the logical connection between no content and meaningless.
However, doubters are entitled to question the accuracy of the proposition that the term “survivor” has no content. So, let us setup a hypothetical discussion between me and a doubter.
Doubter: “Angus, will you prove to me that no content is there”
Angus: “I have searched diligently over a long time and found none”
Doubter: “That’s no proof”
Angus: “Okay, give me proof of content”
Doubter: “I’m not the one making claims”
Angus: “The only way we can make progress is to find facts. What are they? Not finding something is no proof that it does not exist”
Doubter: “”Nothing suits you, what about the thousands who are happy with survivor?”
Angus: “Perhaps they have just not discovered stroke affect people”
Doubter “What about the Stroke Foundation, they use survivor”
Angus: “It is part of their mission statement so any question of it is not welcome. It even has a spot on enableme, but let’s move on”
Doubter: “Okay, you have me baffled so far”
Angus “Let’s go to the acute hospital where a hypothetical death happens for every 20 patients. Obviously I escaped that and for a week or so I was a survivor. Until I was well enough to go to a recovery bed, not a survivor bed. This is history and should be given that weight. There is plenty of content in recovery”
Doubter: “Where will we go now?”
Angus: “To a normal language usage. Question over a back fence “How’s your father going after his stroke?” Answer 1, “He’s making a slow progress in his recovery, thanks” and answer 2 “He’s making slow progress in his survival, thanks”. It shows the unusual use of language.
Now my doubter friend, if we had received answer 2, I am sure we would be surprised and would not make a repeat call next week in case our neighbor was dead. So goodbye for now but give me any proof of survivor content you find”
Doubter “Okay”
Angus.