> Oh wait...motion already corrupted that creation. Maybe this isn't the best way of looking at the situation. It's unreasonable to expect a statement about a state of affairs to remain objectively and exhaustively true for all time, in all circumstances. It's at least equally unreasonable to put such *faith* in language's capacity to represent reality truly to such an extent. To call that *corruption* though is quite a bit too far. Most statements, at the time of their utterance, occur within a context wherein the transitory nature of states of affairs is well understood. I can say my "brother is in town", now, and its recipient will not reasonably assume that will necessarily continue to be the case a week from now. Corruption is too strong of a word for it; it has a certain similarity with corruption, in that the relative "usefulness" of a statement can be said to "decay" with time.