• "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> Apr 12 2005
• John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> Apr 12 2005
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Apr 12 2005
• Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Apr 12 2005
• "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• Carlos <carlos2003nov yahoo.ca> Apr 12 2005
• clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> Apr 12 2005
• pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> Apr 12 2005
• Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> Apr 13 2005
• "Carlos Santander B." <csantander619 gmail.com> Apr 13 2005
• clayasaurus <clayasaurus_member pathlink.com> Apr 13 2005
• Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Apr 13 2005
• Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> Apr 13 2005
• pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> Apr 14 2005
• "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Apr 14 2005
• Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> Apr 14 2005
• pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> Apr 14 2005
• "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> Apr 12 2005
• "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> Apr 12 2005
• "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> Apr 12 2005
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> Apr 13 2005
• "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Apr 13 2005

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people 
spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of 
this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) 
responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and 
therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but 
Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

In article <d3ges3$2gcu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people 
spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of 
this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) 
responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and 
therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but 
Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once again? If so,
so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person spoke up and said
"hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this newsgroup and I
don't care how many times you explain to me there's another perspective other
than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I wrote my first
post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the thread while
their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly vexing to their
correspondents.

I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in modern
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but what the
heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit nor the esteem
in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)

too tired to argue

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d3gg50$2hl8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
In article <d3ges3$2gcu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people 
spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of 
this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) 
responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and 
therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but 
Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once again? If so,
so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person spoke up and said
"hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this newsgroup and I
don't care how many times you explain to me there's another perspective other
than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I wrote my first
post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the thread while
their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly vexing to their
correspondents.

I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in modern
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but what the
heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit nor the esteem
in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)

too tired to argue


Oh, come on now, Justin.  You're a better guy than that.  There was no need to
put heat under that plate.  Just let the opinions fall where they will.  There's
no harm in it.

"too tired to argue" is a warning sign for ourselves not to post! :-)  I know I
gotta watch it many times! (like this one? ooop. too late!)

All the best,

- JJR

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message 
news:d3gg50$2hl8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once again? 
 If so,
 so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person spoke up 
 and said
 "hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this newsgroup 
 and I
 don't care how many times you explain to me there's another perspective 
 other
 than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I wrote my 
 first
 post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the thread 
 while
 their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly vexing to 
 their
 correspondents.

 I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in modern
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but what 
 the
 heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit nor the 
 esteem
 in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


I love passive aggressive people.  :) 

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message 
 news:d3gg50$2hl8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once again? 
If so,
so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person spoke up 
and said
"hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this newsgroup 
and I
don't care how many times you explain to me there's another perspective 
other
than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I wrote my 
first
post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the thread 
while
their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly vexing to 
their
correspondents.

I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in modern
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but what 
the
heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit nor the 
esteem
in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


 
 I love passive aggressive people.  :) 
 


I must have missed the 'passive' part.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d3h9jp$3ks$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I must have missed the 'passive' part.


True. 

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message 
news:d3gg50$2hl8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d3ges3$2gcu$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if 
people
spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, 
but
Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the 
spirit
nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
 again? If so,
 so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person 
 spoke up and said
 "hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this 
 newsgroup and I
 don't care how many times you explain to me there's another 
 perspective other
 than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I 
 wrote my first
 post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the 
 thread while
 their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly 
 vexing to their
 correspondents.

 I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in 
 modern
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, 
 but what the
 heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
 nor the esteem
 in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)

 too tired to argue


I can admit that I'm arrogant.

I can also admit when I don't understand something, or when I've got 
something wrong. And I have the courtesy to offer rationale when I 
profer opinion.

Carlos <carlos2003nov yahoo.ca> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 !

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people 
 spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of 
 this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) 
 responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and 
 therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
 
 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but 
 Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
 nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
 
 


Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <425BDD03.4020405 gmail.com>, clayasaurus says...
Matthew wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people 
 spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of 
 this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) 
 responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and 
 therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
 
 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but 
 Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit 
 nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
 
 


Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!


If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:

FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> writes:

pragma wrote:



Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!


 
 If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:
 
 FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)
 
 - EricAnderton at yahoo


WTF?!?



-- 
-PIB

p.s. :P
--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch

"Carlos Santander B." <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:

Paul Bonser wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 


 Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!



 If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:

 FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)

 - EricAnderton at yahoo


 
 WTF?!?
 
 
 


Ditto.
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... 
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds

clayasaurus <clayasaurus_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
Paul Bonser wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 


 Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!



 If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:

 FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)

 - EricAnderton at yahoo


 
 WTF?!?
 
 
 


Ditto.
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... 
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.


Thank goodness it's friday?

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... 
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.


Thank God It's Friday :)


Sean

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
 
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... 
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.


 
 Thank God It's Friday :)
 
 
 Sean
 


Following conventions of the NG, the original should have been 'TBIF', 
and the translation should be 'Thank Bob It's Friday'.

Maybe Walter can make sure the compiler takes care of this for us?

BA

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d3kvpf$3rk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
 
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... 
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.


 
 Thank God It's Friday :)
 
 
 Sean
 


Following conventions of the NG, the original should have been 'TBIF', 
and the translation should be 'Thank Bob It's Friday'.

Maybe Walter can make sure the compiler takes care of this for us?


<PSA>

Not that it matters, but I always thought it was "Thank /goodness/ its Friday".
(Technically, it should have been "Thank goodness its *Tuesday*" but TGIT
doesn't have the same "so long and thanks for all the fish" factor that was
present in Matthew's post).

My toungue-in-cheek demonstration here was to help provoke the ideal behind
Matthew's post.  I for one don't always agree with how the man conveys himself,
but this thread was a good exercise in getting folks to speak up and communicate
in a more constructive fashion.

I find humor to be useful in getting responses, so that was my way of helping
out. ;)

</PSA>

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d3lqo2$u3b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d3kvpf$3rk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...

I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh...
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.



 Thank God It's Friday :)


 Sean


Following conventions of the NG, the original should have been 'TBIF',
and the translation should be 'Thank Bob It's Friday'.

Maybe Walter can make sure the compiler takes care of this for us?


 <PSA>

 Not that it matters, but I always thought it was "Thank /goodness/ its Friday".
 (Technically, it should have been "Thank goodness its *Tuesday*" but TGIT
 doesn't have the same "so long and thanks for all the fish" factor that was
 present in Matthew's post).

 My toungue-in-cheek demonstration here was to help provoke the ideal behind
 Matthew's post.  I for one don't always agree with how the man conveys himself,


Me neither! ;)

 but this thread was a good exercise in getting folks to speak up and
communicate
 in a more constructive fashion.

 I find humor to be useful in getting responses, so that was my way of helping
 out. ;)

 </PSA>

 - EricAnderton at yahoo 

Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d3lqo2$u3b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
In article <d3kvpf$3rk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...


I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh...
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.



Thank God It's Friday :)


Sean


Following conventions of the NG, the original should have been 'TBIF',
and the translation should be 'Thank Bob It's Friday'.

Maybe Walter can make sure the compiler takes care of this for us?


<PSA>

Not that it matters, but I always thought it was "Thank /goodness/ its Friday".
(Technically, it should have been "Thank goodness its *Tuesday*" but TGIT
doesn't have the same "so long and thanks for all the fish" factor that was
present in Matthew's post).

My toungue-in-cheek demonstration here was to help provoke the ideal behind
Matthew's post.  I for one don't always agree with how the man conveys himself,


 
 Me neither! ;)
 
 
but this thread was a good exercise in getting folks to speak up and communicate
in a more constructive fashion.

I find humor to be useful in getting responses, so that was my way of helping
out. ;)

</PSA>

- EricAnderton at yahoo 


 
 


I understood the whole thing, it just seemed appropriate to respond with 
WTF, though...

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d3mleu$1pkj$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
"pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d3lqo2$u3b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d3kvpf$3rk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...

I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh...
STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.



 Thank God It's Friday :)


 Sean


Following conventions of the NG, the original should have been 'TBIF',
and the translation should be 'Thank Bob It's Friday'.

Maybe Walter can make sure the compiler takes care of this for us?


 <PSA>

 Not that it matters, but I always thought it was "Thank /goodness/ its Friday".
 (Technically, it should have been "Thank goodness its *Tuesday*" but TGIT
 doesn't have the same "so long and thanks for all the fish" factor that was
 present in Matthew's post).

 My toungue-in-cheek demonstration here was to help provoke the ideal behind
 Matthew's post.  I for one don't always agree with how the man conveys himself,


Me neither! ;)


Then we must have the same disease.  Look at my last post regarding the opCmp
drama. :(

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:425BDD03.4020405 gmail.com...
 Matthew wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once 
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if 
 people spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject 
 matter of this conversation" rather than continuing to make 
 (several) responses in the thread while their ignorance remains 
 opaque, and therefore timewastingly vexing, to their 
 correspondents.

 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern 
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, 
 but Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the 
 spirit nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the 
 reverse.)


 Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!


I just don't enjoy having a long and time-consuming debate when 
people don't read the posts and/or don't understand the subject 
matter but continue to argue.

I just think it's a matter of courtesy to back up your opinions with 
argument, and to admit if you don't know something. Personally, I 
don't think any less of people who say "please explain", and it 
helps both parties, since the one whose statements are not being 
understood may be putting them badly. (Or they may be wrong!)

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:27:36 +1000, Matthew  
<admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people
 spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
 this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
 responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
 therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but
 Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit
 nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because they don't  
understand the subject matter.

Regan

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:opso437qk423k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...
 On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:27:36 +1000, Matthew 
 <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if 
 people
 spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
 this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
 responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
 therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, 
 but
 Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the 
 spirit
 nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


 If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because 
 they don't  understand the subject matter.


I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a debate involves opinion 
coupled with rationale. One without the other is worth nothing, just 
an inconsiderate waste of peoples time.

If person X puts forward an argument and person Y responds with 
opinion but no rationale, how can the debate proceed in a manner 
useful to either party? Either person X will suspect person Y is 
ignorant of the issues, or will assume that person Y thinks person 
he/she (X) is too stupid to be deserving of proper rationale. Either 
way, it doesn't constitute a useful debate.

The broader point I was trying to make is that admitting ignorance 
should not be and, IMO, _is not_ something bad. Quite the contrary; 
it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it 
badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me 
nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this 
industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't 
know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or 
any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just 
a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter. 
It's like the word has achieved the same stature as the word 
'criticise', in that it always has entirely pejorative connotations, 
and we've not yet found an equivalent to 'critique'.

I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it. 
It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never 
caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The 
rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on 
I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.) And 
if someone says to me they don't understand something I've said, 
then I must have failed to explain it well and/or fully, so it's an 
opportunity for advancement for me.

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:10:49 +1000, Matthew  
<admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
 news:opso437qk423k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...
 On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:27:36 +1000, Matthew
 <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
 Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
 again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if
 people
 spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
 this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
 responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
 therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.

 I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
 society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks,
 but
 Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the
 spirit
 nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)


 If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
 they don't  understand the subject matter.


 I'm not saying that.


Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent  
discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, which, I have  
resisted the urge to post much too, due to the desire to throttle you  
bodily for casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I  
post.

 I'm saying that a debate involves opinion
 coupled with rationale. One without the other is worth nothing, just
 an inconsiderate waste of peoples time.


You seem to have taken great offence at my "I disagree" comment. To my  
mind the polite response to such a comment is "why?" not a sarcastice  
remark. I hardly think "I disagree" wasted any of your time, in fact it  
saved some, you didn't have to read my reasoning, yet, if you were not  
interested in it.

(what wasted our time was this argument about it).

The reason I did not post a reason immediately was due to being rushed for  
time, plus I thought you remembered my reasoning/position from the last  
time we talked of this very issue/idea.

If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I  
disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is what you  
should post. Just because the medium has changed, common courtesy has not.

 If person X puts forward an argument and person Y responds with
 opinion but no rationale, how can the debate proceed in a manner
 useful to either party? Either person X will suspect person Y is
 ignorant of the issues, or will assume that person Y thinks person
 he/she (X) is too stupid to be deserving of proper rationale. Either
 way, it doesn't constitute a useful debate.


(see above)
Assumption is the mother of all ...

 The broader point I was trying to make is that admitting ignorance
 should not be and, IMO, _is not_ something bad. Quite the contrary;


I agree wholeheartedly.

 it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it
 badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
 nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this
 industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't
 know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or
 any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just
 a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter.


To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took  
offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.

 It's like the word has achieved the same stature as the word
 'criticise', in that it always has entirely pejorative connotations,
 and we've not yet found an equivalent to 'critique'.


Similar to how the word 'discriminate' has changed in meaning and is now  
entirely negative.

 I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it.
 It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never
 caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
 rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on
 I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)


I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly  
offensive when you implied however indirectly that I was doing this.

The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the  
process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I _will_ backup my  
opinion with rationale, I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,  
I'd appreciate the same in return.

If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd  
appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm particularly  
friendly.

My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy  
enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an enemy). Until  
you understand their position you cannot possibly move them to yours. The  
best way IMO to understand the other side is to question and to give  
opinion and gauge the reaction. At the same time you have to acknowledege  
that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  
time) otherwise the debate stalls (as it did this time).

Regan

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

 If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
 they don't  understand the subject matter.


 I'm not saying that.


 Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent 
 discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, 
 which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the 
 desire to throttle you  bodily for casting aspersions about my 
 understanding of things to which I  post.


Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not 
understood the subject matter. But that does not mean to say that I 
therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does not follow 
from the other.

(Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one 
issue. Bob preserve us.)

 If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say 
 "I  disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is 
 what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed, common 
 courtesy has not.


The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication 
are different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup conversations.

I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the 
blindingly obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I disagree" and I'd 
say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would cost time 
due to the latencies, and stifles the debate. I've never seen such 
behaviour on a ng before (save as a deliberate tactic), and I doubt 
very much that it'd prove popular.

 it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put 
 it
 badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
 nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in 
 this
 industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they 
 don't
 know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, 
 or
 any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than 
 just
 a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific 
 matter.


 To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also 
 took  offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.


What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up 
their opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand something, so as 
to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.

 I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit 
 it.
 It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's 
 never
 caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
 rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack 
 on
 I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)


 I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was 
 particularly  offensive when you implied however indirectly that I 
 was doing this.


Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no 
plausible reading of my post that could support that interpretation.

 The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in 
 the  process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I 
 _will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,


And yet you did not.

  I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,


I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context 
of a ng is not courtesy, it is a waste of your correspondent's time.

 If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd 
 appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm 
 particularly  friendly.


I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree 
that I've taken a front-foot approach to the issue, and that egos 
are bruised.

 My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know 
 thy  enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an 
 enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly 
 move them to yours. The  best way IMO to understand the other side 
 is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the reaction. At the 
 same time you have to acknowledege  that you understand their 
 position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  time) otherwise 
 the debate stalls (as it did this time).


If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be 
"do tell" or "why is that" or "I heard about a thing called ...". It 
ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"


It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save 
us all time and just ignore posts that are absent rationale.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Shut up, both of you!

On TV, I saw this discussion between two tops of their respective areas. 
One was the best astronomer in this country, and the other was the arch 
bishop.

They were discussing whether Bob exists.

Contrary to expectations, the discussion was enjoyable -- as opposed to 
an increasing amount of noise here.

BUT THEY DID RECOGNIZE that they didn't understand, or even could not 
understand the other guy's points. They had had such a different 
upbringing, outlook on the world etc. They even had no common words at 
several occasions.

Needless to say, at the end, they both remained in their respective 
beliefs. And they both knew that they really couldn't get through to the 
other guy. But the entire discussion was amicable, and unheated. They 
also showed utmost respect for each other, and never tried to say "this 
is like this". Instead they said "in my opinion" all the time.

Turned out they had written a book together! Discussing the very same 
thing throughout the book. It had started out as an email exchange a 
year earlier. And they had become good friends too.

-----

I've pointed out several times lately, that as programmers we do have 
hugely differing environments and lives. We do different things.

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that, in their back yards, every accomplished 
programmer starts to feel competent, and know "how it is". But we also 
have to appreciate the fact that the _world_ just isn't the same for 
everybody.

Someone doing five-nines reliability programs just sees the world 
differently than someone in a more "average" world. And both may BE 
RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME, in their respective worlds. And that's as it should!

But, please, don't believe that you live in the same world, with the 
same rules and what's Right. Just don't.

-----

Ideally D will cater for both worlds. And a host of others too.

-----

PS, please, both (and all others who've participated), have respect for 
my diplomatic wording here. It took some discipline and restraint.


regards,
Georg "the one who really knows, so listen to ME" Wrede




Matthew wrote:
If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
they don't  understand the subject matter.


I'm not saying that.


Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent 
discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, 
which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the 
desire to throttle you  bodily for casting aspersions about my 
understanding of things to which I  post.


 
 Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not 
 understood the subject matter. But that does not mean to say that I 
 therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does not follow 
 from the other.
 
 (Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one 
 issue. Bob preserve us.)
 
 
If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say 
"I  disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is 
what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed, common 
courtesy has not.


 
 The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication 
 are different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup conversations.
 
 I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the 
 blindingly obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I disagree" and I'd 
 say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would cost time 
 due to the latencies, and stifles the debate. I've never seen such 
 behaviour on a ng before (save as a deliberate tactic), and I doubt 
 very much that it'd prove popular.
 
 
it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put 
it
badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in 
this
industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they 
don't
know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, 
or
any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than 
just
a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific 
matter.


To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also 
took  offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.


 
 What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up 
 their opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand something, so as 
 to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.
 
 
I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit 
it.
It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's 
never
caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack 
on
I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)


I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was 
particularly  offensive when you implied however indirectly that I 
was doing this.


 
 Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no 
 plausible reading of my post that could support that interpretation.
 
 
The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in 
the  process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I 
_will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,


 
 And yet you did not.
 
 
 I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,


 
 I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context 
 of a ng is not courtesy, it is a waste of your correspondent's time.
 
 
If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd 
appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm 
particularly  friendly.


 
 I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree 
 that I've taken a front-foot approach to the issue, and that egos 
 are bruised.
 
 
My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know 
thy  enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an 
enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly 
move them to yours. The  best way IMO to understand the other side 
is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the reaction. At the 
same time you have to acknowledege  that you understand their 
position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  time) otherwise 
the debate stalls (as it did this time).


 
 If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be 
 "do tell" or "why is that" or "I heard about a thing called ...". It 
 ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"
 
 
 It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save 
 us all time and just ignore posts that are absent rationale.
 
 
 

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

Fine by me. :-)

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message
news:425CED12.7030303 nospam.org...
 Shut up, both of you!

 On TV, I saw this discussion between two tops of their respective areas. One
was the best astronomer in this country, 
 and the other was the arch bishop.

 They were discussing whether Bob exists.

 Contrary to expectations, the discussion was enjoyable -- as opposed to an
increasing amount of noise here.

 BUT THEY DID RECOGNIZE that they didn't understand, or even could not
understand the other guy's points. They had had 
 such a different upbringing, outlook on the world etc. They even had no common
words at several occasions.

 Needless to say, at the end, they both remained in their respective beliefs.
And they both knew that they really 
 couldn't get through to the other guy. But the entire discussion was amicable,
and unheated. They also showed utmost 
 respect for each other, and never tried to say "this is like this". Instead
they said "in my opinion" all the time.

 Turned out they had written a book together! Discussing the very same thing
throughout the book. It had started out as 
 an email exchange a year earlier. And they had become good friends too.

 -----

 I've pointed out several times lately, that as programmers we do have hugely
differing environments and lives. We do 
 different things.

 WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that, in their back yards, every accomplished programmer
starts to feel competent, and know "how 
 it is". But we also have to appreciate the fact that the _world_ just isn't
the same for everybody.

 Someone doing five-nines reliability programs just sees the world differently
than someone in a more "average" world. 
 And both may BE RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME, in their respective worlds. And that's
as it should!

 But, please, don't believe that you live in the same world, with the same
rules and what's Right. Just don't.

 -----

 Ideally D will cater for both worlds. And a host of others too.

 -----

 PS, please, both (and all others who've participated), have respect for my
diplomatic wording here. It took some 
 discipline and restraint.


 regards,
 Georg "the one who really knows, so listen to ME" Wrede




 Matthew wrote:
If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
they don't  understand the subject matter.


I'm not saying that.


Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent discussion
with you, and this "blowing off of 
steam" thread, which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the
desire to throttle you  bodily for 
casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I  post.



 Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not understood
the subject matter. But that does not 
 mean to say that I therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does
not follow from the other.

 (Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one issue. Bob
preserve us.)


If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I  disagree"
what is your remark going to be in 
reply? _That_ is what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed,
common courtesy has not.



 The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication are
different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup 
 conversations.

 I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the blindingly
obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I 
 disagree" and I'd say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would
cost time due to the latencies, and 
 stifles the debate. I've never seen such behaviour on a ng before (save as a
deliberate tactic), and I doubt very 
 much that it'd prove popular.


it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it
badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this
industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't
know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or
any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just
a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter.


To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took  offence
at the aspersions you cast in this 
thread.



 What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up their
opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand 
 something, so as to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.


I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it.
It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never
caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on
I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)


I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly  offensive
when you implied however indirectly 
that I was doing this.



 Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no plausible reading
of my post that could support that 
 interpretation.


The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the  process.
If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell 
you so, I _will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,



 And yet you did not.


 I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,



 I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context of a ng
is not courtesy, it is a waste of your 
 correspondent's time.


If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd appreciate a
'friendly' reminder. I dont find your 
sarcasm particularly  friendly.



 I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree that I've
taken a front-foot approach to the issue, 
 and that egos are bruised.


My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy  enemy" as
they say (not that I consider the 
other side an enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly
move them to yours. The  best way IMO 
to understand the other side is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the
reaction. At the same time you have to 
acknowledege  that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell
down this  time) otherwise the debate 
stalls (as it did this time).



 If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be "do tell" or
"why is that" or "I heard about a 
 thing called ...". It ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"


 It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save us all
time and just ignore posts that are absent 
 rationale.