Catagorical or UNCatagorical - The Grint Denial

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> >...
> > 
> > Now Rupert's representatives have said -
> > 
> > ""This is categorically Not Rupert Grint. ..." 
> > 
> > ...is that the right way to say it? 
> > 
> > Doesn't "categorically" mean this statement is true within certain qualifiers or within limited context? 
> > 
> > Shouldn't it be '...UNCategorically not Rupert...', meaning this is absolutely and without qualification not Rupert. 
> > 
> > ...
> > Or, do I have this backwards? 
> > 
> > Not that it matters; just curious.
> > 
> > Steve/bboyminn
> >

> Carol responds: 
> 
> Yep, you have it backwards. "Categorical" means "absolute" or "unqualified." (Remember the categorical imperative from your college philosophy class?) So "categorically" means "absolutely."
> 
> IOW, according to your source, it's definitely not Rupert.
> 
> Carol, ..
>

Thanks, it turns out you are right, though I have to say, to me, it doesn't make logical sense. 'Categorical' to me implies categories, which in turn imply limitations. But apparently, as you say, "Categorical" does mean absolute. Who knew? 

And, I don't think anyone ever really thought it was Rupert in the photo. But I think it does say something about our society when any Red Head can be assume to pass for any other Red Head. That's like saying all black people look alike. Which makes as much sense as saying 'All (fill in the blank) look alike'. 

Steve/bboyminn