Down to words (1356)
Note (8)
“So the guy who threw the table was John’s brother.”
“Yeah.”
“Do you know the father?”
Why ask who was the father of the brother of John? Again, there is no theory here. The answer to the question ‘why ask?’ just breeds more questions. It focuses on the questioner, not the guy who threw the table.
Here is one thread:
“He does genealogies.”
“Why does he do that?”
“His grandfather did them.”
All of a sudden one genealogy gets lost in another. Moreover, the question is diminished because of a hobby of the questioner. This is a diversion. There may be a tie-in. There may not be. The question may be irrelevant as to who the father of John is. That will be factual. It will not lead anywhere useful, such to as a family feud of the father and the proprietor. Inclination to genealogy matters not.
The answer is not: he is an example of a white, patristic, Aristotelian theory of voice that needs deconstructive violence against his spoken word. All this is implied because it is suggested that he does genealogy.
That adds a piece of useless theory. And it discounts or subtracts from the question.