Home > Archive > Cobol > August 2005 > Re: Authorities
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-09, 9:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddabak$581$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 8-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Some people prefer the function of dictionaries to act as authorities.
> Heck,
> at least one country does this.
>
> Authorities are comfortable - if you know what is right, you don't have to
> think, and certainly don't need to understand.
>
> One trouble with dictionaries is that they don't adequately show context -
> look
> up "database" and see what the general public thinks of this word compared
> to
> what programmers use. Or learn why someone says "evolution is only a
> theory".
> Authority has scope, and authoritarians don't want scope.
During the course of this debate I have come to realise how important
context is. It was only when the Doc started removing it (not from mischief,
but because he honestly considered it irrelevant, or simply didn't want it
to be considered in the argument) that I had a flash of insight about it. We
do communicate in shades of grey. Context, including body language and
expression, tone of voice, etc. are all important to the message.
One of the reasons Chuck was offended by my original post is because he
believed I was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. That was fair
enough, but he then went further and decided that there was implicit
contempt in the posts. None of that was ever intended by me. I am forced to
wonder whether he would have had the same opinion if we had been sitting in
a bar discussing it over a beer. Would my body language and tone of voice
have made a difference to his interpretation of my meaning?
I'm inclined to believe it would have. (But, obviously, I can't prove it...)
Are we so conditioned by the adversarial approach to argument that we always
expect the worst? Is it always a contest? I honestly don't know.
I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.
Context is much more important than I realised previously.
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>During the course of this debate I have come to realise how important
>context is.
Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.
>It was only when the Doc started removing it (not from mischief,
>but because he honestly considered it irrelevant, or simply didn't want it
>to be considered in the argument) that I had a flash of insight about it.
At times, to learn of a building one might do well to strip away externals
and examine the structural steel... there are things to be learned, and
unlearned, from such an approach.
>We do communicate in shades of grey.
Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.
>Context, including body language and
>expression, tone of voice, etc. are all important to the message.
It has been said that the one who talks to the spirit-world is the
underlying theme or idea... or that the medium is the message. (sorry,
couldn't resist) What you mention above seems to be a subject of study in
a field called 'semiotics'.
[snip]
>I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.
.... and on the other hand constantly having to clarify idiosyncratic uses
can make for a weary, weary time, Mr Dashwood... as some who have read my
postings might point out. As has been said about thighs, 'In media
felicitas est.'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddchvk$pj4$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
> like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.
>
No, I don't think so. Context is important but it isn't everything. Neither
is dictionary definition. They are all useful in arriving at meaning, but
none of them alone is the full story. It's as if there is a cloud of
possible meaning and parts of it are more probable than other parts... Until
understanding is attempted, all meanings are possible, but once a particular
meaning is seized upon, the wave collapses and no other meanings are then
possible.
But then, perhaps I am spending too much time considering Young's
experiment, EPR, and Quantum Mechanics in general :-)
>
> At times, to learn of a building one might do well to strip away externals
> and examine the structural steel... there are things to be learned, and
> unlearned, from such an approach.
>
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.
Hahaha! Absolutely... :-)
>
>
> It has been said that the one who talks to the spirit-world is the
> underlying theme or idea... or that the medium is the message. (sorry,
> couldn't resist)
That just sounds like MacLuhanacy to me...
>What you mention above seems to be a subject of study in
> a field called 'semiotics'.
I claim no expertise in this field but I have a passing acquaintance with
it. (mainly gained from reading the fictional works of Professoer Umberto
Eco who holds the chair of semiotics at the University of Bologna.) My
understanding, (which may be flawed) is that it is about subliminal
symbology and the meaning ascribed to symbols in different cultures. I guess
that could be an area of context exploration, as you suggest.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> ... and on the other hand constantly having to clarify idiosyncratic uses
> can make for a weary, weary time, Mr Dashwood... as some who have read my
> postings might point out. As has been said about thighs, 'In media
> felicitas est.'
>
et in vino veritas...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Jeff York 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
>like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.
"'When I use a word' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I
intend it to... Neither more, nor less.'".
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| In article <3lu3d7F13e2alU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddchvk$pj4$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>No, I don't think so.
At one point, Mr Dashwood, some people thought they'd always be sopranos
with hairless axillae... funny how things can change.
>Context is important but it isn't everything. Neither
>is dictionary definition. They are all useful in arriving at meaning, but
>none of them alone is the full story. It's as if there is a cloud of
>possible meaning and parts of it are more probable than other parts... Until
>understanding is attempted, all meanings are possible, but once a particular
>meaning is seized upon, the wave collapses and no other meanings are then
>possible.
>
>But then, perhaps I am spending too much time considering Young's
>experiment, EPR, and Quantum Mechanics in general :-)
Sounds more like Schroedinger's cat, I'd say... but in that you posit 'a
cloud of possible meaning' (which I translate as 'a variety of possible
interpretations') it may be more like kittens.
[snip]
>
>Hahaha! Absolutely... :-)
Glad you enjoyed, old man.
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I claim no expertise in this field but I have a passing acquaintance with
>it. (mainly gained from reading the fictional works of Professoer Umberto
>Eco who holds the chair of semiotics at the University of Bologna.)
One might do well to be careful about what one learns from novels, lest
one learn that the Earth is hollow and inside there is a wond'rous
civilisation from the Oldene Dayse.
>My
>understanding, (which may be flawed) is that it is about subliminal
>symbology and the meaning ascribed to symbols in different cultures. I guess
>that could be an area of context exploration, as you suggest.
Perhaps there's something new to learn, Mr Dashwood... at least one can
find the mistakes others have made before one goes about making ones of
one's own.
(A few decades back, when I would have long, passionate, nightlong
discusions about Truth and Falsity with other inebriated Kollidj Kidz I
recall - vaguely - batting back-and-forth with a lad a concept along these
lines. His assertion was that learning from others in this way was a sort
of subordination, in that one took the Truths of Old Authorities over
one's own discoveries. My question was 'Which is better... to have
someone else's Actual Truths or to have My Very Own Mistakes?'; his
response was 'Well... at least they're *mine*, doesn't that count for
something?'
This was before I knew to respond with 'answering a question with a
question is no answer at all' so I replied 'Not if the bridge falls down,
no.')
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| In article <ksljf1lo95id0a5r8dj0gn28hkh927ih0s@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>"'When I use a word' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I
>intend it to... Neither more, nor less.'".
Now one must consider what is more worthy as a basis for action... an
aphorism by a fellow whose history was described in a book-review in The
Economist as 'Lifestyle of the Profound and Potty' or a fictional, talking
egg?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.
As programmers, we are comfortable with unambiguous interpretation of what we
code. And are frustrated when the users are upset when they get what they
asked for instead of what they want after seeing what they got.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddcv82$kij$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>As programmers, we are comfortable with unambiguous interpretation of what we
>code.
That, for me, is one of the delights of coding... the translating of the
swirling greys of 'the world out there' into the Aristotelean 'the bit is
on or the bit is off'.
>And are frustrated when the users are upset when they get what they
>asked for instead of what they want after seeing what they got.
'I know it's what I told you but it's not what I want.'
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.
Let me adjust my monitor to look at it in green and yellow.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> (A few decades back, when I would have long, passionate, nightlong
> discusions about Truth and Falsity with other inebriated Kollidj Kidz I
> recall - vaguely - batting back-and-forth with a lad a concept along these
> lines. His assertion was that learning from others in this way was a sort
> of subordination, in that one took the Truths of Old Authorities over
> one's own discoveries. My question was 'Which is better... to have
> someone else's Actual Truths or to have My Very Own Mistakes?'; his
> response was 'Well... at least they're *mine*, doesn't that count for
> something?'
>
> This was before I knew to respond with 'answering a question with a
> question is no answer at all' so I replied 'Not if the bridge falls down,
> no.')
On the other hand, if we have to make our own ethical decisions, we don't feel
good about having an authority send our kids to kill.
Some compromise seems to be in order here.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddd2ns$mer$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>On the other hand, if we have to make our own ethical decisions, we don't feel
>good about having an authority send our kids to kill.
Plural majestatus est, Mr Brazee... I barely know what makes *me* feel
good, let alone others.
>
>Some compromise seems to be in order here.
.... and on that point there can be no negotiation!
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddd2if$mbc$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Let me adjust my monitor to look at it in green and yellow.
Be careful... twiddle the knob the wrong way and Mr Zitzelberger might not
be able to help agree it into fact.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddco9e$qin$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3lu3d7F13e2alU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> At one point, Mr Dashwood, some people thought they'd always be sopranos
> with hairless axillae... funny how things can change.
>
>
> Sounds more like Schroedinger's cat, I'd say... but in that you posit 'a
> cloud of possible meaning' (which I translate as 'a variety of possible
> interpretations') it may be more like kittens.
Schroedinger's cat is very apposite and the idea is exactly that of his
famous thought experiment.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Glad you enjoyed, old man.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> One might do well to be careful about what one learns from novels, lest
> one learn that the Earth is hollow and inside there is a wond'rous
> civilisation from the Oldene Dayse.
>
Jules Verne I think... Edgar Rice Burruoghs used it for Tarzan as well (The
lost land of Pellucidar - I seem to recall it was in 'Tarzan at the Earth's
Core' , but I was 10 when I read it so I could be mistaken...)
>
> Perhaps there's something new to learn, Mr Dashwood... at least one can
> find the mistakes others have made before one goes about making ones of
> one's own.
>
Ah, I would stake money there isn't a parent alive who has not wished their
kids could learn by the parent's mistakes. When I look back across my life
at all the good and sage advice I received and was unable/unwilling to
assimilate, I realise I could have saved a large amount of time, effort and
pain. I can't speak for others, but I fancy I'm not alone in this... :-)
It seems to me that the REALLY smart people ARE able to learn from the
mistakes of others, but the majority of us can't or won't.
Experience is certainly the best teacher, as the old adage goes, but her
fees are sometimes very high...
> (A few decades back, when I would have long, passionate, nightlong
> discusions about Truth and Falsity with other inebriated Kollidj Kidz I
> recall - vaguely - batting back-and-forth with a lad a concept along these
> lines. His assertion was that learning from others in this way was a sort
> of subordination, in that one took the Truths of Old Authorities over
> one's own discoveries. My question was 'Which is better... to have
> someone else's Actual Truths or to have My Very Own Mistakes?'; his
> response was 'Well... at least they're *mine*, doesn't that count for
> something?'
>
I understand his feeling.
> This was before I knew to respond with 'answering a question with a
> question is no answer at all' so I replied 'Not if the bridge falls down,
> no.')
>
It is true that when it comes to the lives of others (like a bridge tragedy)
we cannot allow the engineer to say: "Oops! Chalk that one up to
experience...", so we put checks and balances in place to ensure that the
risks are minimised and the responsibility is shared by people qualified to
do so. But few of us engineer our lives. And even fewer would be prepared to
share the responsibility for their personal growth and development with
others, no matter how well qualified. (It is one thing to learn a subject
from a tutor as part of the paper chase, it is quite another to do the same
with your personal life, even if you could....)
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Ah, I would stake money there isn't a parent alive who has not wished their
> kids could learn by the parent's mistakes. When I look back across my life
> at all the good and sage advice I received and was unable/unwilling to
> assimilate, I realise I could have saved a large amount of time, effort and
> pain. I can't speak for others, but I fancy I'm not alone in this... :-)
Sometimes it works, and the kids find their own mistakes to make.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <3lulggFt0olcU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddco9e$qin$1@panix5.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Schroedinger's cat is very apposite and the idea is exactly that of his
>famous thought experiment.
That's what it 'smelled' like, aye... but I recall learning about the cat
and thinking 'How does putting the box on a weight-scale change this?'
[snip]
>
>Jules Verne I think... Edgar Rice Burruoghs used it for Tarzan as well (The
>lost land of Pellucidar - I seem to recall it was in 'Tarzan at the Earth's
>Core' , but I was 10 when I read it so I could be mistaken...)
Authors can be like musicians who, upon hearing 'a right tasty lick',
miraculously change from appropriators to originators... but lo, there is
nothing new under the sun, said a Preacher.
>
>
>Ah, I would stake money there isn't a parent alive who has not wished their
>kids could learn by the parent's mistakes. When I look back across my life
>at all the good and sage advice I received and was unable/unwilling to
>assimilate, I realise I could have saved a large amount of time, effort and
>pain. I can't speak for others, but I fancy I'm not alone in this... :-)
On the other hand... perhaps that cloud's lining is a bunch of Fine
Stories to relate at the oddest of times...
.... which might, indeed bore the youngsters to tears.
>
>It seems to me that the REALLY smart people ARE able to learn from the
>mistakes of others, but the majority of us can't or won't.
Perhaps it happens more often, and more subtley, than one might think;
consider 'I'll never forget the time I saw (person) do (activity) and have
it blow all to Hades and beyond... I never tried doing *that* again!'
>
>Experience is certainly the best teacher, as the old adage goes, but her
>fees are sometimes very high...
At times one gets what one pays for.
[snip]
>I understand his feeling.
>
>
>It is true that when it comes to the lives of others (like a bridge tragedy)
>we cannot allow the engineer to say: "Oops! Chalk that one up to
>experience...", so we put checks and balances in place to ensure that the
>risks are minimised and the responsibility is shared by people qualified to
>do so. But few of us engineer our lives.
There's that pesky third person plural again... see above about learning
from others.
kDD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddd9hp$n53$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3lulggFt0olcU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> That's what it 'smelled' like, aye... but I recall learning about the cat
> and thinking 'How does putting the box on a weight-scale change this?'
>
It doesn't. That was a different thought experiment ('the clock in a box')
devised by Einstein to show it was possible to measure both energy and time
together. Unfortunately (for Einstein) the paraphenalia needed to make the
experiment practicable (weights, springs, etc) always make it impossible to
remove the uncertainty from the measurement. It was part of the 'battle'
between Einstein and Bohr to confirm or discredit quantum theory. This
'battle raged from 1927 until Einstein's death in 1955. Bohr won
(convincingly); Einstein lost, and quantum mechanics is one of the most
successful (in that it successfully predicts events within probabilistic
limits) theories in the history of mankind.
> [snip]
>
>
> Authors can be like musicians who, upon hearing 'a right tasty lick',
> miraculously change from appropriators to originators... but lo, there is
> nothing new under the sun, said a Preacher.
>
>
> On the other hand... perhaps that cloud's lining is a bunch of Fine
> Stories to relate at the oddest of times...
>
Yes, there is that... Living a full life ensures there are many experiences
and memories for the long winter nights. Now, in my dotage :-), I am
attempting to write some of them down and create fiction based on real
people and events (who are often much stranger than the wildest fiction) and
the exercise fo attempting it is a wrthwhile (and entertaining) one.
> ... which might, indeed bore the youngsters to tears.
>
My experience is, that as long as you don't enforce stories on kids they are
very happy to listen and will actually 'reach' for campfire tales, once
they've had one or two good ones... :-)
>
> Perhaps it happens more often, and more subtley, than one might think;
> consider 'I'll never forget the time I saw (person) do (activity) and have
> it blow all to Hades and beyond... I never tried doing *that* again!'
>
Maybe.
>
> At times one gets what one pays for.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> There's that pesky third person plural again... see above about learning
> from others.
>
OK. In my experience, I don't see people engineering their lives. (Did I
really need to qualify that? Obviously, you thought I did...)
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
| In article <3lvckjF14bnkqU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddd9hp$n53$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>It doesn't. That was a different thought experiment ('the clock in a box')
>devised by Einstein to show it was possible to measure both energy and time
>together. Unfortunately (for Einstein) the paraphenalia needed to make the
>experiment practicable (weights, springs, etc) always make it impossible to
>remove the uncertainty from the measurement.
Really? I thought Schroedinger's cat was supposed to be two cats, one
living and one dead, until the box was opened. Both cats would have
masses detectable by rather common weight-scales; when one 'disappeared'
where would all that mass go?
[snip]
>
>Yes, there is that... Living a full life ensures there are many experiences
>and memories for the long winter nights. Now, in my dotage :-), I am
>attempting to write some of them down and create fiction based on real
>people and events (who are often much stranger than the wildest fiction) and
>the exercise fo attempting it is a wrthwhile (and entertaining) one.
An Italian to the key? No, sorry, that's a Roman a clef.
[snip]
>
>Maybe.
What is Life without a bit of Uncertainty?
[snip]
>
>OK. In my experience, I don't see people engineering their lives. (Did I
>really need to qualify that? Obviously, you thought I did...)
Then our experiences are different; I have known a few folks who have told
me 'Nope, I don't (x); I once saw a guy try it and (horrible thing)
resulted.'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-11, 8:59 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dde9s2$hgp$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3lvckjF14bnkqU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Really? I thought Schroedinger's cat was supposed to be two cats, one
> living and one dead, until the box was opened. Both cats would have
> masses detectable by rather common weight-scales; when one 'disappeared'
> where would all that mass go?
>
No Doc, it is one cat in two states simultaneously. More correctly, it is in
an infinite number of states (Feynman's sum over histories), some of which
are more probable than others. When the box is opened the probability wave
"collapses" into the most likely possibility, and the cat is found to be
alive or dead.
This is obviously complete nonsense when viewed as a description of the
world we live in, and that is what most of these 'thought experiments' were
designed for: to show that quantum theory just couldn't possibly be true.
The trouble is that all of them are attempts to model something in terms we
can grasp and deal with. They are not what truly happens in the quantum
world. Niels Bohr refuted them within the terms they used; that is why he
insisted on meticulous detail when describing the experiments, right down to
the dials, springs, weights, indicators even the nuts and bolts used to
construct the boxes.
The 'clock in a box' experiment is ingenious (as you might expect from
Einstein) but Bohr nevertheless refuted it, and did so in terms that were no
more than those used to describe the experiment. I had a look around the Net
to see if I could find anything on it and the following link seems to cover
quite a bit of what I have been arguing over the last few days, including a
good description of the clock in a box:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.html
We COULD affix the box rigidly, in such a way that its exact location was
known. But then it would be impossible to know its mass.(You can't weigh it
unless it can move...) Quantum Theory wins every time.
> [snip]
>
> What is Life without a bit of Uncertainty?
>
Heisenberg probably said that... :-)
> [snip]
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-11, 8:59 am |
| In article <3m0v5kF14ua6bU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dde9s2$hgp$1@panix5.panix.com...
>No Doc, it is one cat in two states simultaneously.
Ahhhhh, there it is... and since attributes can shift between states only
one of those states needs to have the attribute of mass.
[snip]
>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ics/Time_2.html
Thanks much... good to review such things, every once in a while, I'd
say... if only as an exercise in humility; long ago I generated the
formulation that ''Time' is the label applied to the purported
sequentiality of events' and I now see this as an echo/restatement of
Mach's '... time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the
changes of things.'
[snip]
>
>Heisenberg probably said that... :-)
I came to from a variety of diverse sources, from a gambler's 'A 'sure
thing' ain't no fun' to what I remember to be Schopenhauer's 'Man is a
creature of curious wants and needs. If these are not met he is
dissatisfied, if these are met then he is bored.'
DD
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddd9hp$n53$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
> OK. In my experience, I don't see people engineering their lives. (Did I
> really need to qualify that? Obviously, you thought I did...)
It depends on what level of conversation you're using, and whether you
want to amend what you say until it's crafted to their exacting
specifications. I had no problems at all with your third person plural,
and I understood exactly what you meant.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-12, 9:59 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:a4067$42fd3443$45491c57$5127@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> It depends on what level of conversation you're using, and whether you
> want to amend what you say until it's crafted to their exacting
> specifications. I had no problems at all with your third person plural,
> and I understood exactly what you meant.
>
Thank you, Daniel. Sometimes I really wonder if it is me or CLC... or just
some people in CLC.
Nevertheless, as long as it is fun (and on the off-chance of actually
learning something) I'll continue to come here...
As the Doc remarked a few days ago; everyone needs a hobby... :-)
Exchanging ideas with intelligent people is not a bad one, even if there is
sometimes a smokescreen of pedantry and intolerance.
Pete.
| |
|
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3m4s38F1560rqU1@individual.net...
> Exchanging ideas with intelligent people is not a bad one, even if there
> is sometimes a smokescreen of pedantry and intolerance.
>
> Pete.
It's not a smokescreen of pedantry and intolerance, it was right asking over
and over and over and over for clarification on how you could possibly
understand what you meant to say when other sources _clearly_ indicate you
don't!
No more required from me on *this* thread :-)
JCE
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-12, 9:59 pm |
| In article <3m4s38F1560rqU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Exchanging ideas with intelligent people is not a bad one, even if there is
>sometimes a smokescreen of pedantry and intolerance.
Oooooohh, intelligent people? In the words of that wise philosopher, Moe
Howard, in response to the greeting of 'Gentlemen!': (looking over
shoulder) 'Who walked in?' If you meet some of these intelligent people
would you be so kind as to arrange an introduction for me?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-15, 4:59 pm |
|
On 12-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Oooooohh, intelligent people? In the words of that wise philosopher, Moe
> Howard, in response to the greeting of 'Gentlemen!': (looking over
> shoulder) 'Who walked in?' If you meet some of these intelligent people
> would you be so kind as to arrange an introduction for me?
I've found that I can learn more from people who do think than from people who
can think. Intelligence is over-rated.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-15, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddq7fh$ekf$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 12-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I've found that I can learn more from people who do think than from people who
>can think. Intelligence is over-rated.
Perhaps so... but I'll try to wait at least until the introductions before
I start coming to conclusions.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-15, 9:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddq7fh$ekf$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> On 12-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> I've found that I can learn more from people who do think than from people
> who
> can think. Intelligence is over-rated.
>
Yeah, all us dumbasses say that... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Jeff York 2005-08-16, 3:59 am |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Exchanging ideas with intelligent people is not a bad one, even if there is
>sometimes a smokescreen of pedantry and intolerance.
I can assure you sir, that my pedantry and intolerance is *no*
smokescreen! :-)
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-16, 4:59 pm |
|
"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cg73g19t71crp8i35om84p7mecsk8umf9b@
4ax.com...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I can assure you sir, that my pedantry and intolerance is *no*
> smokescreen! :-)
>
Hahaha! Good one, Jeff... :-)
Pleased to see there are people who cling to the REAL values back in the
U.K.... :-)
Pete.
|
|
|
|
|