Reading can be defined as the interpretation of signs, including visual signs like drawings.
That's as may be, but my argument was as follows:
1) The definition of reading excludes pictures.
2) This book is comprised of pictures.
3) One cannot read this book.
Attacking statement 1 doesn't mean there was a tautology inherent in the statement. 

The tautology lies in your "by definition".
We have managed to move completely away from the original topic and started arguing syllogisms. Only on RAFO.
Indeed.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Would you read this book?
02/06/2011 01:32:11 AM
- 1353 Views
No, because by definition one cannot read pictures.
02/06/2011 01:39:12 AM
- 924 Views
That depends entirely on your definition of reading *NM*
02/06/2011 03:28:30 PM
- 372 Views
I hope you realize how tautological that was.
*NM*
02/06/2011 06:50:54 PM
- 358 Views

I merely made the tautology explicit. It was already there in your claim.
02/06/2011 09:23:28 PM
- 916 Views
How was it there in my claim?
03/06/2011 01:41:47 AM
- 915 Views
Re: How was it there in my claim?
03/06/2011 08:03:23 AM
- 995 Views
I wouldn't go out of my way to do so.
02/06/2011 03:01:43 AM
- 836 Views
how often have you read a book that you haven't gone out of your way to do so?
02/06/2011 02:59:37 PM
- 890 Views
That looks like Jonah without the whale. Or maybe I'm just weird that way.
02/06/2011 09:15:42 AM
- 984 Views
