Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2006 > Re: Any comments? (Answers to Pete)
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]
| Author |
Re: Any comments? (Answers to Pete)
|
|
|
| anderschwan@hotmail.com wrote:
> I wasn't sure anybody would reply since I wasn't presenting a religious
> debate on the existence of whatever - people here still think
> creationism should be taught in schools.
If evolution is so superior, why not teach both - seems like that
superior theory would win out with the kids every time. :)
> Religious topics make my skin
> crawl as I am surrounded by the thumping of multitudes of bibles.
> There's a dude on the street corner shouting at people - I think he
> called me a heathen.
Ignore people like that. Even if you *are* a heathen, there's no way
they would have known that - it would have just been a lucky guess. ;)
> They have no idea or direction of where this is going. The only thing
> they have is a big budget to spend, but so far they've only invested in
> themselves (Treos, laptops, etc).
That's good to hear. Neither Fujitsu or Micro Focus's products are cheap.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ 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++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| In article <d21c$44370876$45491d7a$6740@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>anderschwan@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>If evolution is so superior, why not teach both - seems like that
>superior theory would win out with the kids every time. :)
Leaving aside a little thing like The Law - in the United States of
America it has been decided that the teaching of creationism in a
publically-funded school is unConstitutional - if that were the case then
there might be little trouble getting children to eat fruits and
vegetables instead of candy... and some who have dealt with children have
told me this is not their experience.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-11, 6:55 pm |
| On 11 Apr 2006 13:29:08 GMT, mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Do you mean Ward Churchill? (An astonishing number of people have
>made this mistake, particularly on line - demonstrating once again
>just how accurate "blogs" and other Web 2.0 pseudo-news sources are.
>That'd be a good slogan for Tim O'Reilly, actually: "Web 2.0: Now
>ignorance has a soapbox!")
Yes. Actually, I was using people's response to what they think he
is saying as an example.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-13, 6:55 pm |
| On 13 Apr 2006 12:25:22 -0700, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>It is only provable that it follows the definitions of its elements in
>the particular set of mathematics.
>
>Similarly 1+1=10 is a 'known and provable fact'.
There are 10 types of people in the world...
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-14, 7:55 am |
| On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:45:52 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Wow - it must take courage coming out like that, in the middle of a
>newsgroup where *everyone but I* agree with you.
Are you implying that posts of the obvious in a CoBOL newsgroup should
require courage?
Or that it's more admirable to be brave and have a position everybody
else disagrees with?
Who was the guy who used to post in this forum about how good
Spaghetti code was?
| |
|
| In article <t78v32t8enkn0hf9rhvdcvpcr6qio0011d@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Who was the guy who used to post in this forum about how good
>Spaghetti code was?
The phenomenon of association is curious... but the first name that comes
to my mind is 'Chef Boyardee'.
DD
| |
|
| In-Reply-To: <t78v32t8enkn0hf9rhvdcvpcr6qio0011d@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <344f3$44402ba3$45491d7a$1022@KNOLOGY.NET>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
Organization: UseNetServer.com
Lines: 40
X-Trace: 344f344402ba3e0ecb8df01022
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:157549
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:45:52 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> Are you implying that posts of the obvious in a CoBOL newsgroup should
> require courage?
I just thought it was curious that he comes in as the thread is dying
and says how upset it made him.
> Or that it's more admirable to be brave and have a position everybody
> else disagrees with?
His post just reminded me of some who walks up to a group of people and
then says "me too!".
> Who was the guy who used to post in this forum about how good
> Spaghetti code was?
It does take more bravery to advocate an unpopular position. But there
seems to be a fine line among the readers as to what qualifies as
bravery, what is foolhardiness, and what is "trying to shove [x] down
our throats".
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
| Holly wrote:
> Just curious, but don't you ever post from work? Or read an article on
> the internet, or email a personal contact? I think everybody does that
> to some extent.
> Since I tend to be working all of the time, including this past Easter
> w end, I guess the line has blurred between "work" and a "personal
> life". Especially since I don't have what they would call "work/life
> balance". I saw some blurb on television about how Americans work too
> much, and should work "smarter" not harder. Which is also ridiculous.
> It's hard to work smart when you don't have the proper tools, are
> exposed to constant interruptions, meetings and phone calls, are
> expected to log in from home to complete tasks, etc etc. The companies
> are always expecting workers to be more productive, without giving
> anything else to the employees in return.
>
I am not sure what others do, but I work from home. I have never been
in the office where I "work", nor met personally any of the people I
work with or for. However, I do post during "work time" on a second PC.
Ussually that happens when I am waiting for a compile, or during some
other delay.
Donald
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145299588.521807.232120@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious, but don't you ever post from work? Or read an article on
> the internet, or email a personal contact? I think everybody does that
> to some extent.
I do, but I don't makes posts on public forums implying I have crappy
managers, or that the project I'm working on is doomed to failure, etc. In
fact, I almost never talk about my company at all; and if I do, I try not to
reveal much more than what can be gleaned from their website. I signed a
non-disclosure contract, so I'm not supposed to give too many details about
our internal projects, since I do a lot of research and development for
those projects.
[...]
> I saw some blurb on television about how Americans work too
> much, and should work "smarter" not harder.
There's this website called "LifeHacker" that makes a couple of posts
per day with tips on "working smarter". One of the tips I've applied for
example, was to configure Outlook to highlight e-mails that were sent only
to me (as opposed to being CCed to the whole office), so I know which
e-mails to prioritize (in the sense that if I don't answer them, no one
will).
http://www.lifehacker.com/
- Oliver
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
| Holly wrote:
> Lucky Ducky! I think that is the best scenario. But you guys are all
> experts, me, I'm just a newbie.
> I would get so much more done if I could work from home. It's so much
> easier to concentrate without all the distractions going on. Sometimes
> in a crunch they will allow it, but usually they want us full time
> employees here in the office.
>
Well, there are distractions at home too. I've done it for years though
(close to 40 years now) so my kids were brought up "not to bother dad
while he is working", and my neighbours etc. know that I am not
available for coffee 9 to 5, even if I am at home. Neighbours, in fact,
are the worst. Some simply cannot get it through their heads that
"home" does not equate to "available to talk". People that would never
dream of walking into your workplace and bugging you seem to think it is
just fine if you are "at home".
Donald
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-18, 7:55 am |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145299588.521807.232120@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious, but don't you ever post from work?
No. I don't send personal mail from work either, unless it is to meet
someone for lunch that day or something that requires a timely response. I
realise that most corporations keep a record of all emails for several years
(I was involved in a case once where we had to retrieve all email to and
from a certain individual in the company over a period of 3 years. I didn't
think it would be on file, but it was...)
Or read an article on
> the internet,
Yes, I read many articles on the internet. It's part of my job to stay
informed. I don't write them in company time.
or email a personal contact?
Yes, but only as described above and always with innocuous content.
I think everybody does that
> to some extent.
Yes, I think they do to. Allof my team have access to the internet and email
and no-one so far has abused this.
> Since I tend to be working all of the time, including this past Easter
> wend, I guess the line has blurred between "work" and a "personal
> life". Especially since I don't have what they would call "work/life
> balance".
You should redress this, Holly. Life is for living...
> I saw some blurb on television about how Americans work too
> much, and should work "smarter" not harder. Which is also ridiculous.
> It's hard to work smart when you don't have the proper tools, are
> exposed to constant interruptions, meetings and phone calls, are
> expected to log in from home to complete tasks, etc etc. The companies
> are always expecting workers to be more productive, without giving
> anything else to the employees in return.
>
And there are no slack employees who just want everything they can get and
give as little as possible in return :-)?
It cuts both ways. Companies have expectations and employees have
expectations. They are not mutually exclusive, although it sometimes seems
that way. Read my posts to the thread "Management Wars", here in CLC. It
gives a charter as to what employees, managers, and the corporation should
reasonably expect. Of course it is just one man's opinion, but I honestly
believe that anyone who applies it will further their career and be a
valuable employee, without being ripped off by the company, and without
ripping the company off either. I've applied it all my life and I have no
complaints about my career.
Fact is, there are bad employees and there are bad managers. If you apply a
personal code in the workplace you don't have to be the effect of either.
Pete.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-18, 7:55 am |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145306205.347892.293180@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Lucky Ducky! I think that is the best scenario. But you guys are all
> experts, me, I'm just a newbie.
> I would get so much more done if I could work from home. It's so much
> easier to concentrate without all the distractions going on. Sometimes
> in a crunch they will allow it, but usually they want us full time
> employees here in the office.
>
Hmmm... unless there is some sound reason for you needing to be on site
(like dealing with customers or client departments etc.) requiring you to
be there simply smacks of control.
Traditional management is task oriented and the best way to ensure tasks get
done is to have everyone on site so you can monitor and control them.
Enlightened managers (like me... :-)) are not concerned whether their staff
are on site or not as long as they deliver. This is achieved by setting
goals (rather than tasks) and agreeing dates for delivery (most of our stuff
is timeboxed as RAD anyway). If any of my people need to be offsite for some
reason, I don't ask them why (it's really none of my business....) so I am
spared all the sick relative and dying grandparent scenarios. If you are on
target and feel you can take 3 hours for lunch, do it. If you need half a
day off, take it. Need to collect drycleaning or go to the bank or get a
haircut? Do it. No problem. I'm not running a prison camp. I expect people
to be there if they have meetings scheduled (especially if it is with me
:-)) or if there is some valid reason for them to be there. (Like having
access to the workstations the company thoughtfully provides :-)) For the
most part, absenteeism and sickies are minimal. My people seem to enjoy
being at work and that makes it fun for me too (when I'm working at their
level. When I have to deal with senior management it is not fun...:-))
I have found it is good to treat people as responsible, intelligent, human
beings until they prove they are not. Assume they are working with you, not
against you. Help them to succeed and never set them up for failure. I often
see team members working unpaid 'overtime' because they took time off. I've
never had complaints from anyone and I try to ensure the work is spread
fairly. I set directions then delegate, and trust the people I delegate to.
Every Friday, I get a personal status report from every member of my team.
It has three headings: THIS WEEK, NEXT WEEK, PROBLEMS. I reply to each one
individually. If any of the problems require my attention I do it right away
and facilitate or go and have a chat wherever I see the need. Most of them
just come back with 'None' in this section. (They are pretty outstanding
people... :-))
We only have 'Team meetings' if there is some real reason to bring everyone
together. I buy the whole team lunch when we achieve a milestone and I take
the girls for lunch and the boys for beer every couple of ws. I don't
care whether the company reimburses me for this or not (they don't, as it
isn't company policy, but they do provide a pizza lunch once a month for all
the teams (not just mine)).
We are on schedule and achieving our goals.
The workplace doesn't have to be a bad experience.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-18, 7:55 am |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145307031.335200.31940@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, you guys have all freaked me out now. Thanks for the nightmares!
>
> But I really don't know how many peeps over here are googling cobol
> usenet groups. There's only 5 of us developers here and nothing I've
> said would be a secret to them. I didn't mean to imply anything about
> mgmt (I think I said that my mgr is a nice guy) and I don't recall
> mentioning my company's name or anyone's name in particular, or signing
> a nondisclosure contract (since I'm not a contractor). I don't think I
> mentioned anything distinctive or details on what we actually do (I
> hope not). I guess I thought you all could relate to it, the craziness
> of the situation and all. What's going on in the corporate world is
> really a shame and I think it is a lot different now than the 9 years
> since I started. It makes a job that used to be fun a lot more
> difficult.
> I certainly have gotten some good advice from you all, which has helped
> me a lot!
> Now I'll quit posting about it so I don't have to go work at Walmart.
> And I'll let you guys keep going on and on about politics. That's more
> fun to read.
>
Holly, if you end up at Walmart, just let us know which branch... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4ak312Ft4o2oU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1145306205.347892.293180@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>Hmmm... unless there is some sound reason for you needing to be on site
>(like dealing with customers or client departments etc.) requiring you to
>be there simply smacks of control.
Hmmmmm... where was this addressed before? Ahhhhh, the wonders of this
WorldWide Web thingie... from
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....de=source&hl=en>
(of course, I apologise to the original poster for cutting things up in
midsentence)
--begin quoted text:
....there's no way to manage him directly to make sure that
he's not cheating the company ('manage' here being used in the crudest
Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes)...
--end quoted text
Keep that in mind... 'Industrial Era' management.
>
>Traditional management is task oriented and the best way to ensure tasks get
>done is to have everyone on site so you can monitor and control them.
With all due respect, Mr Dashwood, I disagree; I would say that what you
are calling here 'traditional management' is actually what I call
'Industrial Era' management and it is *not* oriented towards the
accomplishment of a task, it is oriented towards keeping bodies in their
places at the machine which is the actual means of production... 'process
oriented', as it were.
>
>Enlightened managers (like me... :-)) are not concerned whether their staff
>are on site or not as long as they deliver.
*That* is what I would call 'task orientation'. It does not matter what
process produces the code - folks in grey suits, white shirts and blue
ties sitting in neat rows in identical cubicles or someone getting a
'Eureka!' moment at 2:am and sitting in a bath-robe at a PC with a snoring
puppy in her lap, all the same - as long as the user's specifications are
met.
>This is achieved by setting
>goals (rather than tasks) and agreeing dates for delivery (most of our stuff
>is timeboxed as RAD anyway).
Hmmmmm... seems we might be saying the same thing except that you are
using the word 'goal' where I would 'task'.
[snip]
>I have found it is good to treat people as responsible, intelligent, human
>beings until they prove they are not.
I believe that this used to be called 'Theory Y management' a few decades
back... as contrasted with 'Theory X management'. The difference used to
be summed up by comparing statements like:
'Folks in general are responsible, reasonable people who are proud of
their abilities and will put in a good day's work for a dollar well paid.'
'Folks in general are liars and thieves who must be watched constantly and
motivated by fear in order to prevent them from cheating you.
>Assume they are working with you, not
>against you.
That seems to correspond with the former assertion above.
>Help them to succeed and never set them up for failure.
That seems to be the opposite of situations in which some folks find
themselves working in.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-18, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:47:01 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I agree about working at home. I would not want to go back to an office
>environment. Hell, I'd have to get dressed in the morning. I understand
>offices have rules against reading email in your underwear.
I suspect that there more businesses that require underwear than
proscribe it.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-04-18, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:6jba42l23qu5mer5j6uo71l8irmm9i0luc@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:47:01 -0400, Donald Tees
> <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect that there more businesses that require underwear than
> proscribe it.
I suspect most businesses have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
- Oliver
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-04-18, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:47:01 -0400, Donald Tees
> <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I suspect that there more businesses that require underwear than
> proscribe it.
probably so.
Donald
| |
|
| Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:6jba42l23qu5mer5j6uo71l8irmm9i0luc@
4ax.com...
>
> I suspect most businesses have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Believe it or not, underwear is both issued and required with all
military uniforms in the Air Force, by AFI 36-2903. I've never been
inspected, though; I suppose that could get interesting...
(You don't have to wear the issued underwear once you graduate basic
training - one of many policies in the military that I'm happy with!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ 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++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-04-19, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145481166.786377.193310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Have you ever counted the dead grandmothers of an employee and reached
> a count of three?
One or both of the employees parents may have been adopted (or
artificially inseminated) and raised by a lesbian couple, or the
grandparents may have been practicing polygamy.
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-04-19, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145478588.107174.261240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>
> OK Oliver, I'm hooked! But what is the real URL (or are they only
> online during office hours?)?
Are you implying that the URL doesn't work for you? 'Cause it works for
me when I click on it (i.e. I didn't retype it, so there was no chance of
mistyping). And AFAIK, they are online 24/7.
In case it wasn't clear, the URL I gave is to the "front page" of the
site where multiple tricks are listed. I didn't directly link to the trick
which explains the Outlook thing.
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-20, 7:55 am |
| On 19 Apr 2006 14:55:04 -0700, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not that American schlock you guys ('n' gals) call beer?
>
>BTW, what is the US opinion of Schlitz (I think that was the only good
>US beer I've ever drunk) beer?
There isn't a single American opinion.
Colorado alone has hundreds of breweries (most are brew-pubs) that
offer alternative beers and ales created by people who seem to like
the product more than the money.
I'm not a fan of pilsner lagers so I don't have an opinion on which is
best. Fortunately ales and porters are widely available, not to
mention oddities such as steam beer.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-04-20, 7:55 am |
| > >BTW, what is the US opinion of Schlitz (I think that was the only good[color=darkred]
I'm a Milwaukee native; I assume I'm not eligible to comment on Schlitz?
FWIW, Schlitz used to use the following as its marketing tag line:
"The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous"
Just what we needed: a national campaign perpetuating the stereotype of
Milwaukeeans as abusers of the English language. (Should be "The beer WHICH
made Milwaukee famous").
A real pisser, ainna?
MCM
| |
| Michael Wojcik 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
|
In article <zbM1g.70131$Jd.27582@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> writes:
>
> FWIW, Schlitz used to use the following as its marketing tag line:
>
> "The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous"
>
> Just what we needed: a national campaign perpetuating the stereotype of
> Milwaukeeans as abusers of the English language. (Should be "The beer WHICH
> made Milwaukee famous").
That's highly debatable.
First, "made Milwaukee famous" is a restrictive clause in any
reasonable reading of the phrase I can imagine; it specifies which
beer is under discussion. The primary claim is that Schlitz beer
in particular is responsible for Milwaukee's fame. Contrast it
with "Beer, which made Milwaukee famous", a nonrestrictive use of
the same clause which claims that Milwaukee is famous for beer in
general. (Note that in this latter case the clause is naturally
set off in commas, because nonrestrictive clauses are peripheral
or parenthetical in relation to the antecedent.)
The commonly-promulgated rule is that restrictive clauses take the
relative pronoun "that", except in cases where common idiom requires
"which" (eg following a preposition) or for reasons of euphony or
effect. So the "rule", insofar as there is one, favors "that" in
this case.
But usage experts are far from unanimous on that subject anyway. The
preference between relative pronouns for restrictive versus
non-restrictive clauses is a recent invention, and pretty much all
experts recognize numerous exceptions.
See the alt.usage.english FAQ[1] for more information.
1. http://www.alt-usage-english.org/big_faq.html#fxthatvs
--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
Art is our chief means of breaking bread with the dead ... but the social
and political history of Europe would be exactly the same if Dante and
Shakespeare and Mozart had never lived. -- W. H. Auden
| |
|
| In article <e288tb02jll@news4.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The commonly-promulgated rule is that restrictive clauses take the
>relative pronoun "that", except in cases where common idiom requires
>"which" (eg following a preposition) or for reasons of euphony or
>effect. So the "rule", insofar as there is one, favors "that" in
>this case.
>
>But usage experts are far from unanimous on that subject anyway.
How very unusual... experts disagreeing? Sarcasm aside, I recall being
taught, e'er-so-long ago, that if the situation refers to something that
can be referred to as a 'who' one uses 'which', otherwise a 'that'.... and
this, of course, may be as firm as:
'I' before 'e', except after 'c', or when sounding like 'a', as in
'neighbor' and 'weigh'... either that or it's just weird, Keith.'
DD
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
| "Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:e288tb02jll@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <zbM1g.70131$Jd.27582@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, "Michael
Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> writes:
WHICH[color=darkred]
>
> That's highly debatable....
So what the hell did you expect of the Polish kid from the South Side
("soutside" to natives) of subject city?
MCM
| |
| Michael Wojcik 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
|
In article <e28aig$ofh$1@reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
> In article <e288tb02jll@news4.newsguy.com>,
> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
> How very unusual... experts disagreeing? Sarcasm aside, I recall being
> taught, e'er-so-long ago, that if the situation refers to something that
> can be referred to as a 'who' one uses 'which', otherwise a 'that'....
I don't recall coming across that before, but a review of an AUE
thread[1] on the subject suggest that it's a relatively recent
invention, and probably another bit of nonsense from the Latinists
(who also created the pointless, and justifiably ignored, prohibition
against the "split infinitive").
The oldest relative pronoun in Modern English is "that", which
antedates "which" by some centuries. So for quite some time users of
English didn't have any choice; it was "that" or nothing at all.
According to the AUE FAQ, it wasn't until around the beginning of the
twentieth century that editors started making a noticeable effort to
police the choice of relative pronouns.
In any case, such rules only interfere with good style, in my opinion
(which has been cultivated through many years of reading style
guides, perusing scholarly works on the English language, debating
with editors, and discussing with compositionists). There is no
substitute for familiarity with both reading and writing euphonious
and effective prose. Perhaps its a pity that relatively few people
are willing to make the necessary effort, but memorizing a bunch of
rules will not suffice in its place.
The first time I taught college composition I assigned a style guide.
I never did so again; I found it unproductive, even damaging.
Richard Ohman wrote a famous article for _College English_ some years
ago that demonstrated just how a style guideline like "use definite,
specific, concrete language" (the title of Ohman's article) interferes
with the production of effective prose.
1. http://groups.google.com/group/alt....242710141034b3d
--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
I would never understand our engineer. But is there anything in this world
that *isn't* made out of words? -- Tawada Yoko (trans. Margaret Mitsutani)
| |
|
| In article <e28e1o01im8@news3.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>In article <e28aig$ofh$1@reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
>
>I don't recall coming across that before, but a review of an AUE
>thread[1] on the subject suggest that it's a relatively recent
>invention, and probably another bit of nonsense from the Latinists
>(who also created the pointless, and justifiably ignored, prohibition
>against the "split infinitive").
I'm not sure what standards are being used to judge 'relatively recent'...
but the Latinists were, as I recall, began to be influential in the 19th
century; it might be a safe assumption that I was not being taught much
before their ascendancy.
[snip]
>In any case, such rules only interfere with good style, in my opinion
>(which has been cultivated through many years of reading style
>guides, perusing scholarly works on the English language, debating
>with editors, and discussing with compositionists). There is no
>substitute for familiarity with both reading and writing euphonious
>and effective prose. Perhaps its a pity that relatively few people
>are willing to make the necessary effort, but memorizing a bunch of
>rules will not suffice in its place.
In that speech and song are interchangeable - how's that for tossing off a
whole 'nother kettle of fish? - an ear for music doesn't hurt, either.
>
>The first time I taught college composition I assigned a style guide.
>I never did so again; I found it unproductive, even damaging.
>
>Richard Ohman wrote a famous article for _College English_ some years
>ago that demonstrated just how a style guideline like "use definite,
>specific, concrete language" (the title of Ohman's article) interferes
>with the production of effective prose.
Hmmmmmm... I am not sure what 'effective prose' is intended to convey
here; an effective insurance-policy may not be an effective novel may not
be an effective instruction-manual may not be an effective travel-guide...
but all are specimens of prose. As has been said before, in this forum
and others, regarding the primacy of technique over improvisation: 'First
you are learnen to scharfen der knife, *den* you are learnen to cutten der
vood.'
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
| On 20 Apr 2006 16:48:55 GMT, mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
>The first time I taught college composition I assigned a style guide.
>I never did so again; I found it unproductive, even damaging.
Microsoft Word sometimes shows up grammar errors that I cannot tell
are correct. Often times that is because I can't tell it that a word
is a noun.
But speaking of which and that - most spell checkers look for double
words, and I have a tendency to say that that is sometimes what I
want.
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 16:48:55 GMT, mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Microsoft Word sometimes shows up grammar errors that I cannot tell
> are correct. Often times that is because I can't tell it that a word
> is a noun.
>
> But speaking of which and that - most spell checkers look for double
> words, and I have a tendency to say that that is sometimes what I
> want.
Now that, Howard, is a post that grates on my eyes ... are they not
gramatical errors? Grammar is a noun, and nouns cannot modify nouns,
they require adjectives. "Gramatical" is the adjective.
Donald
;< )
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 7:55 am |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145382215.030561.182490@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hey, I was all there in your corner until you mentioned just the boys
> for beer? What about the chicks? We enjoy a bevvy or two every now
> and then :(
>
It all comes down to alliteration... lunch for the ladies, beer for the
boys. I should have mentioned that lunch is at a licensed restaurant... I
don't do it all the time (couldn't afford to :-)) but it happens regularly.
Sometimes some of the team (boys and gorls) will be going somewhere for
lunch and they invite me.
> I've had great bosses, and I've had not so great ones. Mine here
> aren't too bad, they just aren't really there for us because everything
> is so crazy. My manager is a great guy but he doesn't have time to
> have meetings with us.
Well, when I first took over this team I had a meeting with them and
explained a few things about my management style. One of them is that I
don't like meetings for the sake of it, or so I can be 'seen to be
communicating'. Anyone on my team can ask for a team meeting if they feel
there is a sound reason for doing so. My lead Business Analyst and my lead
Programmer also have meetings with their people, but not on a regular
scheduled basis. It is when they need to brainstorm or discuss stuff. As
RAD is fairly new on this site I did some presentations to the whole group
which were fun and seemed to go down well. Since then they have taken to it
like ducks to water and I am thrilled with what they are producing and how
they are approaching it. I also try to promote a 'blame free' culture where
it is safe to be imaginative and try stuff. I can't remember the last time I
had to officially reprimand someone or even criticise what they did.
If your manager doesn't have time to have meetings with you then some other
form of communication should be implemented. (I use status reports to see
what each individual is up to and they are quick and non-onerous (10 minutes
on a Friday.)) A few ws back a couple of individuals stopped sending
them. I didn't make a big deal about it I simply asked if they would rather
attend a team meeting every Friday, as they did under my predecessor. No one
has missed a status report since :-) I find these extremely useful. It keeps
me in touch with each individual, allows me to be sure that the direction I
want is being followed, and alerts me immediately to problem areas and
things that need my facilitation. I do talk to people as well :-)
> It's not the people I mind, it's some of the
> situations we have to deal with.
Try and think of it as part of a learning process. With that learning comes
growth (both professional and personal). What doesn't kill us makes us
stronger...:-)
If it's any consolation... I also have situations to deal with that I don't
enjoy. I think everyone does. It is part of life. As you deal with more of
them your confidence grows and, while you may never look forward to some
situations, you will find them less dreadful and terifying as you handle
more of them.
Maybe it will get better as time goes
> on.
>
I would be amazed if it didn't... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e22mnb$pua$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4ak312Ft4o2oU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm... where was this addressed before? Ahhhhh, the wonders of this
> WorldWide Web thingie... from
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt....de=source&hl=en>
>
> (of course, I apologise to the original poster for cutting things up in
> midsentence)
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> ...there's no way to manage him directly to make sure that
> he's not cheating the company ('manage' here being used in the crudest
> Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes)...
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Keep that in mind... 'Industrial Era' management.
>
>
> With all due respect, Mr Dashwood, I disagree; I would say that what you
> are calling here 'traditional management' is actually what I call
> 'Industrial Era' management and it is *not* oriented towards the
> accomplishment of a task, it is oriented towards keeping bodies in their
> places at the machine which is the actual means of production... 'process
> oriented', as it were.
>
Yes, I like 'Industrial Era' with it's Victorian overtones... :-) I'm not
going to argue task versus goal orientation with you, Doc. At a superficial
level it isn't important. If you get into the details of it (as I have done
over the last 15 years) it is absolutely critical... :-) Task orientation
implies a certain type of quantitative approach. Goal orientation implies a
totally different approach. But there is far too much in this to discuss it
here. (Besides, I'm currently writing a book about it and I have no
intention of giving everybody a free preview... :-))
A good trick (and in the book... :-)) is how to use MS Project (which is
totally task oriented) to manage goals...
>
> *That* is what I would call 'task orientation'.
Here we have to differ. This is totally goal oriented, although I didn't say
that before...
> It does not matter what
> process produces the code - folks in grey suits, white shirts and blue
> ties sitting in neat rows in identical cubicles or someone getting a
> 'Eureka!' moment at 2:am and sitting in a bath-robe at a PC with a snoring
> puppy in her lap, all the same - as long as the user's specifications are
> met.
>
Something like that...it isn't necessarily the user's specification that
must be met, (Some users can't and don't produce any...) It is the goal of
enabling the user to achieve something which may be spelled out in very
general terms. (It will be refined by interaction and iteration.) The
approach is SO different from a waterfall/SDLC approach (where specs are
written and signed off before building can proceed) that it is far too much
to go into here. There is a place for both approaches. For SDLC I would use
tasks; for RAD I use goals. Horses for courses...
>
> Hmmmmm... seems we might be saying the same thing except that you are
> using the word 'goal' where I would 'task'.
>
I have no doubt we are in agreement. And we did diverge over terminology.
> [snip]
>
>
> I believe that this used to be called 'Theory Y management' a few decades
> back... as contrasted with 'Theory X management'. The difference used to
> be summed up by comparing statements like:
Sounds highly chromosomatic to me :-) The approaches I use are not things I
have learned in some school of Management Theory (although that wouldn't be
wrong, either). Rather they are the refinement of wide reading in general
terms, and a considerable period of hands on experience, in a very wide
cross section of industries and cultures. I do not propound any approach as
being a good theoretical one; what I do, I do because I KNOW it works.
I have not encountered either of the Theories you mention above.
>
> 'Folks in general are responsible, reasonable people who are proud of
> their abilities and will put in a good day's work for a dollar well paid.'
>
> 'Folks in general are liars and thieves who must be watched constantly and
> motivated by fear in order to prevent them from cheating you.
>
>
> That seems to correspond with the former assertion above.
>
Yes, I think it s fair to say I go with the positive approach... :-)
>
> That seems to be the opposite of situations in which some folks find
> themselves working in.
Unfortunately, not all managers are me :-)
Pete.
>
> DD
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 7:55 am |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145481166.786377.193310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Or a lack of trust or a lack of mechanisms by which to control and
> measure work done by off-site employees. I once worked for a company
> that allowed (valued) female workers to work part-time from home. That
> worked well until a male colleague was seen preparing his car for his
> holiday whilst "working from home". Trust is very important.
>
If he worked for me and achieved his goals, I would have no problem with
this whatsoever. Trust is neither necessary nor helpful. Results are what
matter. Your power is determined by the results you achieve. Bring home the
bacon and you can wash the car whenever you like.... :-) As a manager, part
of my job is to ensure that my people achieve their goals. I don't do this
by threatening or cajoling or trusting or distrusting. I do it by ensuring
they have the proper tools to do the job, by providing support and advice
when they get stuck, by ensuring that plans and directions are achievable
and realistic (without everybody working 70 hours a w), and by making
sure that people outside our area who they interact with, provide what is
needed in a timely manner (facilitation). When they achieve, it is to their
credit. THEY did it. No-one stood over them or ensured that every possible
hour was worked, other than themselves. It is a fantastic thing to see a
group of people attacking work with gusto and enjoying it.
I see team members going the extra mile every day, and not doing it because
they will get a raise, but because they want to achieve. They get
satisfaction out of the pursuit of excellence. Those are the people you want
to work with and when you can find them, work is indeed a pleasure.
>
> Yes, but uninterrupted periods of work at home can achieve far more, if
> you trust the employee.
>
uninterrupted periods of work often lead to achievement... :-) with or
without trust :-)
>
> Have you ever counted the dead grandmothers of an employee and reached
> a count of three?
No. :-) My folks don't need dead grandparents to get a day off... :-)
>
> If you are on
>
> I'd love to work for you but you'd have to keep me out of the pubs at
> lunch time!
>
Not as hard as you might think... If you have a problem waiting back at the
workstation, and it is interesting and challenging inasmuch as it requires
your full attention. Furthermore, if you have promised yourself to solve it
before you go home, you may find that after the second pint you are ready to
take it on and defeat it. Staying for further beer is simply robbing time
from yourself. Solve it, THEN go and have the third pint.... :-)
> When I have to deal with senior management it is not fun...:-))
>
> Expect to be disappointed.
>
Yes, you'd think that would happen all the time, wouldn't you?
Oddly enough, it is rare. I have had to fire two people in 15 years. I have
transferred some to other teams where their attitude would be less
debilitating for everybody than on my team. (Only after I was completely
satisfied they were unlikely to be worth the effort of salvage... :-)) Far
and away, the majority of people I manage are, or become, happy to be at
work and to be achieving goals.
Some people WANT to be on the A Team.
Those that don't, won't be. In the early days I was very hesitant about
cutting out the dead wood. On one occasion my Boss (who I respected very
much and learned much from) advised me to fire someone. I resisted
strongly, feeling I could change their attitude and it was too drastic. He
didn't force me, just let me decide. Six months later, I had to fire the
person. It cost me six man months. My Boss never said "I told you so", he
just bought me a beer. Since then, I have no qualms about making sure the
right people are on the team. (A whole chapter in the book is dedicated to
choosing the team, and I could easily write three chapters on it...)
I confess that not all have been immediate successes and I have had some
'hard men' (and women... :-))
>
> Assume they are working with you, not
>
> Not Prince2 standard then?
LOL! Nothing I do is Prince2 and I have turned down some very lucrative
contracts because they required it. Prince2 is way better than nothing at
all, but I beleive there are much more effective methods available now and
it is showing its age.
>
> I reply to each one
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 7:55 am |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:cWx1g.661$Fd6.69@edtnps82...
>
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1145481166.786377.193310@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> One or both of the employees parents may have been adopted (or
> artificially inseminated) and raised by a lesbian couple, or the
> grandparents may have been practicing polygamy.
>
> - Oliver
:-) You show a remarkable ability for imaginative and lateral problem
solving, Oliver. It is not surprising you are such a capable programmer.
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4arsqoFu76qoU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e22mnb$pua$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt....de=source&hl=en>
>Yes, I like 'Industrial Era' with it's Victorian overtones... :-)
Feel free to use it, Mr Dashwood... keep in mind that a Good Scholar cites
sources.
>I'm not
>going to argue task versus goal orientation with you, Doc. At a superficial
>level it isn't important. If you get into the details of it (as I have done
>over the last 15 years) it is absolutely critical... :-) Task orientation
>implies a certain type of quantitative approach. Goal orientation implies a
>totally different approach. But there is far too much in this to discuss it
>here. (Besides, I'm currently writing a book about it and I have no
>intention of giving everybody a free preview... :-))
This is a violation of an Anciente Traditione, Mr Dashwood... a Standard
Line, oft attributed to the stereotypical schoolyard drug-dealer is 'Sure,
for free... the first one's *always* for free.'
>
>A good trick (and in the book... :-)) is how to use MS Project (which is
>totally task oriented) to manage goals...
Another good trick, Mr Dashwood, is to try and extend principles beyond
the tools/methods/technology of a given place/time... Euclid and
Archimedes can be made 'to work' given only a papyrus scroll, a stick and
some sand in which to draw figures... or a book and a blackboard... or a
computer and a graphics program. Not, of course, that you would presume
to put yourself in the same class as the ancient geometers, of course...
but the examples have, in such works, been adapted to the tools of the
time.
>
>Here we have to differ. This is totally goal oriented, although I didn't say
>that before...
Perhaps that might be a reason that we did not differ on it before.
>Something like that...it isn't necessarily the user's specification that
>must be met, (Some users can't and don't produce any...) It is the goal of
>enabling the user to achieve something which may be spelled out in very
>general terms.
Ahhhhh... *this* gets dicey. What you suggest, it seems, is the ability
to supply 'what I want'.
[snip]
>
>I have no doubt we are in agreement. And we did diverge over terminology.
What's in a name, anyhow... a nose, by any other name, would still be on
the front of one's head... usually.
>
>Sounds highly chromosomatic to me :-) The approaches I use are not things I
>have learned in some school of Management Theory (although that wouldn't be
>wrong, either). Rather they are the refinement of wide reading in general
>terms, and a considerable period of hands on experience, in a very wide
>cross section of industries and cultures.
Standing on the shoulders of giants again, are you? That you've not read
it does not necessitate that you were not reading the works of/working
with someone who had done so.
>I do not propound any approach as
>being a good theoretical one; what I do, I do because I KNOW it works.
Hmmmm... something above about 'horses for courses' got snipped but it
seems applicable here. Leaving aside such complexities as theories of
knowledge and other academic matters... that you've found something
applicable to the particular course of the places and times you've
experienced may make it useful to consider and nothing more.
Not 'Dashwood says he KNOWS this, therefore it must be true', not
'Dashwood says he KNOWS this, therefore it must be a shipment of
shoemakers... errrrr, a load of cobblers' but 'Dashwood says he KNOWS
this... how might his claim of knowledge be applicable to what is being
attempted now?'
[snip]
>
>Unfortunately, not all managers are me :-)
Mightn't be as much of a market for your book if they were. Do I get to
write a dustjacket-blurb for it?
'Wonderful, riveting, insightful... if I find myself once again
commode-bound by a lack of firmness I might even read it!'
DD
| |
|
| In article <4arvkeFuq3a0U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Some people WANT to be on the A Team.
>
>Those that don't, won't be.
Have a care, Mr Dashwood... not everyone sees a team of any sort - A or
Omega - in the same fashion that you might. I've worked in places where
'being a team player' seemed to translate into 'being anonymously
subordinate' or 'being an interchangeable part'. Consider:
'The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.'
'The nail that sticks out may be a useful thing upon which to hang one's
coat.'
Both kinds of corporate cultures exist... and both kinds have produced
things of beauty, value and use. A wonderful world it is, that has such
marvels in it, neh?
DD
| |
|
| Holly wrote:
> I noticed some people have objected to "off topic" discussions,
I also agree with Mr. Klein's view that they're not impeding actual help
on COBOL-related topics.
The "produce a file only on Friday" initial request shows in my reader
as being posted at 0231 CDT, with the first reply (being a programmatic
one, the solution the original poster wanted) with a timestamp of 0300 CDT.
(I do also find a good bit of ironic humor in that this thread started
with the subject "Any comments?" Seems we all took that a bit
literally!) :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ 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++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:37:13 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Now that, Howard, is a post that grates on my eyes ... are they not
>gramatical errors? Grammar is a noun, and nouns cannot modify nouns,
>they require adjectives. "Gramatical" is the adjective.
My grammar was a very nice woman, and would never make an error like
that.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2airh$af7$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4arsqoFu76qoU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Feel free to use it, Mr Dashwood... keep in mind that a Good Scholar cites
> sources.
>
I ALWAYS keep that in mind. And not just with regard to Scholars; anybody
who has a good idea should get credit for it.
>
> This is a violation of an Anciente Traditione, Mr Dashwood... a Standard
> Line, oft attributed to the stereotypical schoolyard drug-dealer is 'Sure,
> for free... the first one's *always* for free.'
Sorry, I never dealt drugs in the schoolyard so I was unaware of this
requirement.
>
>
> Another good trick, Mr Dashwood, is to try and extend principles beyond
> the tools/methods/technology of a given place/time... Euclid and
> Archimedes can be made 'to work' given only a papyrus scroll, a stick and
> some sand in which to draw figures... or a book and a blackboard... or a
> computer and a graphics program. Not, of course, that you would presume
> to put yourself in the same class as the ancient geometers, of course...
> but the examples have, in such works, been adapted to the tools of the
> time.
I have no idea what you are saying here.
>
>
> Perhaps that might be a reason that we did not differ on it before.
>
>
> Ahhhhh... *this* gets dicey. What you suggest, it seems, is the ability
> to supply 'what I want'.
>
That is certainly the aim. Not much point in setting up shop if you intend
to supply something that is NOT what I want, is there?
> [snip]
>
>
> What's in a name, anyhow... a nose, by any other name, would still be on
> the front of one's head... usually.
>
>
> Standing on the shoulders of giants again, are you? That you've not read
> it does not necessitate that you were not reading the works of/working
> with someone who had done so.
Like Newton, we ALL stand on the shoulders of giants as soon as we start
studying any field of endeavour. I see nothing wrong in that. Progress is
possible for Humans because written (recorded) speech enables information to
be passed tfrom one generation to the next. If we had to start from scratch
with each generation, I'd be discussing ways to make fire here...
>
>
> Hmmmm... something above about 'horses for courses' got snipped but it
> seems applicable here. Leaving aside such complexities as theories of
> knowledge and other academic matters... that you've found something
> applicable to the particular course of the places and times you've
> experienced may make it useful to consider and nothing more.
>
> Not 'Dashwood says he KNOWS this, therefore it must be true', not
> 'Dashwood says he KNOWS this, therefore it must be a shipment of
> shoemakers... errrrr, a load of cobblers' but 'Dashwood says he KNOWS
> this... how might his claim of knowledge be applicable to what is being
> attempted now?'
>
Very fair comment. I know what I know because I have acquired the experience
that led to that conclusion, in the workplace. It is possible to derive
general conclusions from multiple specific experiences.
1. Lets match burn down too far.
2. Tries to change lightbulb that has been on for several hours
3. Attempts to pick up lamb chop off barbeque
4. Picks up innocuous looking steel rod in workshop, not realising it has
had one end against heater.
Conclusion: Hot things can be painful.
The most important thing is that experience gives us the confidence to deal
with new sets of problems which we may not have encountered before. It isn't
just about encountering a situation and saying "ITSA...apply rule 97".
> [snip]
>
>
> Mightn't be as much of a market for your book if they were. Do I get to
> write a dustjacket-blurb for it?
>
I'll keep you in mind as a possible reviewer when I finally get round to
completing it :-)
> 'Wonderful, riveting, insightful... if I find myself once again
> commode-bound by a lack of firmness I might even read it!'
Yes, that kind of comment would be very helpful. Thank you.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2aje5$4cg$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4arvkeFuq3a0U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Have a care, Mr Dashwood... not everyone sees a team of any sort - A or
> Omega - in the same fashion that you might. I've worked in places where
> 'being a team player' seemed to translate into 'being anonymously
> subordinate' or 'being an interchangeable part'. Consider:
>
> 'The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.'
>
> 'The nail that sticks out may be a useful thing upon which to hang one's
> coat.'
>
> Both kinds of corporate cultures exist... and both kinds have produced
> things of beauty, value and use. A wonderful world it is, that has such
> marvels in it, neh?
>
Absolutely.
I am aware the world is imperfect. The corporate world especially so. My
posts here are intended to show that it doesn't HAVE to be that way.
I am not pretending that all is sweetness and light.
If one manager reading this gets some ideas that will make life better for
all concerned, then my time has been well spent.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145622782.551572.86130@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pete, I wish you were my boss! Please let us know when the book comes
> out - I'll be sure to buy several and pass them around!
>
> I noticed some people have objected to "off topic" discussions, but
> this thread has been so helpful to me. How many other threads have
> 700+ posts? I've enjoyed this so I hope we can all keep discussing
> subjects other than "how do I fix this". I think being able to discuss
> any issue is good for the group, especially when it involves logic,
> debate or professional development. It sure is a lot more interesting
> anyway. There's more to life than lines of code.
>
> Thanks again!
>
Thanks for the encouragement, Holly.
And I agree with you about this forum. Many people don't seem to realise it
is an unmoderated forum. That means no one is editing posts, ensuring they
stay on topic, or in any way censoring it. You can post anything you like
here and it will be read by around 50,000 people.
COBOL is good, but life is better.
There's a place for both in CLC.
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4at8afFspphgU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2airh$af7$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Sorry, I never dealt drugs in the schoolyard so I was unaware of this
>requirement.
You havent? Well, let me tell you it's a fine way to... errrrrr... I mean
I've HEARD that it's a fine way to make a small buck... errrrr...
undermine the Moral Fiber of a country.
>
>I have no idea what you are saying here.
My apologies for my obscurity, Mr Dashwood. I was trying to supply an
admonition against limiting the application of your theories to the
tools/methods/technology of a given place/time.
[snip]
>
>That is certainly the aim. Not much point in setting up shop if you intend
>to supply something that is NOT what I want, is there?
Mr Dashwood, leaving aside the marketing strategies involved in 'creating
demand' and such... the difficulties in supplying 'what I want' are many,
the two most immediate, to me, being:
1) If I could read minds I'd be working the stockmarket, not coding.
2) 'Be careful what you want/wish for... you may get it.'
As for the second... I recall, decades on back, being assigned to work
with a manager who sat me down and began describing 'what he wanted'.
After listening to his twisted, tortured tale the sun came out and I
realised that this Terribly Complex Thing was... a report with two
break-levels.
Anyhow... he got weary and finally said to me 'Can you do it?'... and I
smiled and replied 'I can make this Machine do anything you want.'
He relaxed, grinned and came back with 'Can you make it do my job for me?'
I was younger... and brash... and foolish... and I smiled back and said
'Sure... when would you like to be fired?'
'Huh?'
'Well... if the machine's doing your job there's not much use for you
around, is there?'
'Uh... hadn't thought of it that way.'
[snip]
>If we had to start from scratch
>with each generation, I'd be discussing ways to make fire here...
Ummmmm... to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, if starting from scratch each
generation was required there might not be a 'here' (UseNet) here.
[snip]
>Very fair comment.
Couldn't ask for more... well, I *could* but, in this case, at least, I
might be disappointed.
[snip]
>I'll keep you in mind as a possible reviewer when I finally get round to
>completing it :-)
Must... keep... holding... breath.
>
>
>Yes, that kind of comment would be very helpful. Thank you.
No problem... as you can see, I tried to keep it kind of... loose.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145809015.255051.34760@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps a line like:
>
> Mr. Dashwood has written this tome entirely to his own
> satisfaction.
>
> might serve on the dustjacket. BTW, it is loosely based upon a Nigerian
> reference given for a job. In Nigeria, it is illegal to give a bad
> reference, so referees tend to be very creative in conveying negative
> attributes.
>
Thanks Alistair.
I have no idea why you would be negative about a work in progress, but I'm
sure you have your reasons.
Pete.
>
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:42:05 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>And I agree with you about this forum. Many people don't seem to realise it
>is an unmoderated forum. That means no one is editing posts, ensuring they
>stay on topic, or in any way censoring it. You can post anything you like
>here and it will be read by around 50,000 people.
That's an interesting number. How was it determined?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:7bkp421nok267rlv696kj2qkrfkjv395h7@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:42:05 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> That's an interesting number. How was it determined?
By certain assumptions and extrapolations, based on the number of unique
posters, and figures released by Usenet. I should emphasise 'around' :-)
Indications are that many people who have no 'official' interest in COBOL
read this forum also. Posts here are also echoed in other places whch have
their own readership. I have had private mail regarding posts here from
people who have never visited CLC.
Pete.
| |
| Michael Wojcik 2006-04-25, 9:55 pm |
|
In article <e28gbu$a6$1@reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
> In article <e28e1o01im8@news3.newsguy.com>,
> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what standards are being used to judge 'relatively recent'...
> but the Latinists were, as I recall, began to be influential in the 19th
> century; it might be a safe assumption that I was not being taught much
> before their ascendancy.
By "relatively recent" I meant "a good long time after the use of
'which' and 'that' as relative pronouns became established in
English, and not so very long ago in terms of the rate at which
English changes". Obviously this is a subjective measure.
Indeed, the Latinists might well have been ascendant when you were
in school; there are still quite a few of them around, as far as I
can see. Doesn't make their ideas about usage any less silly,
though. (That, too, is a subjective measure, of course.)
>
> In that speech and song are interchangeable - how's that for tossing off a
> whole 'nother kettle of fish? - an ear for music doesn't hurt, either.
Yes, I suppose it does. Certainly an ear for cadence can help a
writer avoid jarring rhythms (in a language like English, with
distinct syllabic stress - in one like Japanese, it's probably less
important).
>
> Hmmmmmm... I am not sure what 'effective prose' is intended to convey
> here; an effective insurance-policy may not be an effective novel may not
> be an effective instruction-manual may not be an effective travel-guide...
> but all are specimens of prose. As has been said before, in this forum
> and others, regarding the primacy of technique over improvisation: 'First
> you are learnen to scharfen der knife, *den* you are learnen to cutten der
> vood.'
"Effective prose" is the sort of handwaving generalization I employ
when I fear it'd take to long to pin down something more specific.
True, there are many employments for prose, and they have different
demands. But presumably a writer writes in order to achieve some
effect upon the reader, whether that's conveying certain concrete
ideas or inspiring certain images or evoking certain emotions. So
for every language situation there are goals that can motivate the
writer's choices - what linguists call "pragmatics".
Even deliberately "difficult" prose, as in some of the modernist
novelists or many critical theorists (my own field, when I'm not
whittlin' code), I think has a purpose - sometimes to stretch the
capabilities of the language, sometimes perhaps just to show off the
author's ability to twist phrases together into unlikely contortions.
And I will agree that technique (in rhetoric, techne) is worth
knowing, as are grammar and the conventions of usage among prominent
writers and the history of the language and so forth. These are
tools for understanding good writing and formulating a coherent idea
of it.
--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
I said, 'I need to put my soul into my work and it is well known that
computers haven't got a soul.' My father said, 'The Americans are working
on it.' -- Sue Townsend, _The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 3/4_
| |
|
| In article <e2mjpi01ov@news4.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>In article <e28gbu$a6$1@reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Obviously this is a subjective measure.
'Obvious' is in the mind of the beholder, Mr Wojcik... thanks for the
clarification.
>
>Indeed, the Latinists might well have been ascendant when you were
>in school; there are still quite a few of them around, as far as I
>can see. Doesn't make their ideas about usage any less silly,
>though. (That, too, is a subjective measure, of course.)
From what I recall learning about such folks 'their ideas' were something
along the lines of 'understanding good writing and formulating a coherent'
specimen of it... but as prescriptivists instead of as descriptionists.
[snip]
>
>"Effective prose" is the sort of handwaving generalization I employ
>when I fear it'd take to long to pin down something more specific.
>True, there are many employments for prose, and they have different
>demands. But presumably a writer writes in order to achieve some
>effect upon the reader, whether that's conveying certain concrete
>ideas or inspiring certain images or evoking certain emotions. So
>for every language situation there are goals that can motivate the
>writer's choices - what linguists call "pragmatics".
To bring back a comparison to music - an agreement about which I snipped
above - it might be fruitful to consider the composing of a piece intended
to be a 'march'. While it is easy to find many examples of this
particular sort of composition what they all appear to have, to the best
of my knowledge, is a 2/4 or 4/4 tempo... or a reasonable facsimile
thereof. What is the purpose of this? The purpose is to be able to have
groups of people to walk in a particular formation as the music is being
played, a foot striking the ground when a beat is emphasised. To call a
piece written in, say, 11/7 time a 'march' might be making a curious
statement, certainly... but to expect a group of people to walk in a
particular formation while it is being played, a foot striking the ground
when a beat is emphasised, might cause a bit of... consternation in the
reviewing-stand.
>
>Even deliberately "difficult" prose, as in some of the modernist
>novelists or many critical theorists (my own field, when I'm not
>whittlin' code), I think has a purpose - sometimes to stretch the
>capabilities of the language, sometimes perhaps just to show off the
>author's ability to twist phrases together into unlikely contortions.
Language has been seen as a tool, certainly... and a given tool can be put
to various uses, as anyone who has used a screwdriver as a hammer one
moment and a pry-bar the next might have experienced. How the tool is
employed and toward what end is predicated on the intentions of the
wielder and those who interpret the result of the action.
>
>And I will agree that technique (in rhetoric, techne) is worth
>knowing, as are grammar and the conventions of usage among prominent
>writers and the history of the language and so forth. These are
>tools for understanding good writing and formulating a coherent idea
>of it.
Some of these tools tell what has gone on before, some of them are
rules to - as their promulgators have it - assist in insuring it continues
to go on. Descriptionist versus prescriptionist... as the Germans used to
say, in media felicitas est.
DD
|
|
|
|
|