Re: "claim", etc. (was Re: C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing)
In article <14700fda-3ca2-4d27-a151-72607d3dd80b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Shao Miller <sha0.miller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:13 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ee0d5533-2ac2-46fb-9be7-6c341904a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Shao Miller <sha0.mil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:03 am, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In article <__mdnYamw8-m5dbRnZ2dnUVZ7q-dn...@xxxxxx>,
Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ snip ]
If a person receives an electric shock every time one reads "claims,"
that is sufficient reason to avoid using it around such a person.
Other such reasons and words are possible, and none of my business to
argue about, but to try to respect, instead.
An "insider's" perspective on the use of "claims to have" versus "has"
might very well perceive a negative connotation. I did not, and thus
didn't intend it. Consider an "outsider's" perspective which might
simply use "claims" as part of describing a logical reasoning
process. Statements can make a claim, sound or unsound. To use "has"
instead of "claims to have" is illogical. Deeming a statement as a
claim does not imply the claim is false (negative connotations). I
cannot help that three people perceive a negative connotation. This
paragraph can try and succeed, or try and fail.
[ snip ]
Sure, I understood why you said "claims to have" rather than "has" --I agree. I believe that people associating a claim of a claim with a
I do that myself when I don't really have any basis for knowing
about the truth of the claim. But I'm aware that for some people
"claims to have" is not just a statement of fact, but one that casts
doubt on the claim. So I try to make it clear that I'm not trying
to be insulting. People [*] aren't always logical!
[*] There could be exceptions. I'm not sure I've ever met one,
but with, what, over 6 billion people on the planet, who can say ...
dispute for the latter claim will find their doubt-casting.
I don't understand what you mean by that sentence, but maybe it's
not very important.
be reconditioned just as avoidance of "bad words" can be
[ snip ]
"Wordy and pedantic style" applies to _my_ posts _already_. :)I would not -- I would take the approach described above. But this
sort-of-advice should probably be taken with a big block of salt,
because it does make for a rather wordy and pedantic style, maybe,
and while that's pretty appropriate for me, maybe not so much for
Agreed on "wordy and pedantic style."
Careful, there, who are you calling "wordy and pedantic" ....
Oh, maybe no one. (And even if you were, it would be true of me,
though a "smile when you say that, pardner" [*] would be in order.)
"You said it, not me" ? (But yeah, now that you mention it ....)
I'd better add a :-), no?
will _continue_ to apply as more emotional lighteners and/or
neutralizers are sprinkled in.
"...who are you calling..." is another example of a perceived
Meaning "an example of perceiving an attack where none was meant"?
I have already requested that in general: stop perceiving
personal attacks where
there are none; even though a history of personal attacks in Usenet
might make this challenging. :S
[*] Possibly US-centric cultural reference to -- some movie fromThat cultural reference is familiar to me, outside of the U. S. A.
long ago, I think. The point is that it's easier to be laughed
*with* than laughed *at*. If that doesn't make sense say so and
I'll try to clarify.
Agreed that the reference comes from that culture. :)
Nobody should be laughing when the subject is people's feelings being
hurt, in my opinion. It's a very serious matter. That is why there
aren't any smile tokens in that post. A smile token might encourage
Well, yeah, but my point was that sometimes the same words can be
perceived either as an attack or an invitation to join in laughing
about shared foibles. In a text-only medium it can be hard to
tell the difference. Emoticons can be irritating when overused,
but sometimes they do help.
[ snip ]
Fair enough. (I did think it might be something along those linesThanks for being polite. :)
but couldn't think how to express that thought politely enough.)
I'm on my best behavior here because of the RH post that prompted
me to put in my two cents' worth. Also maybe a :-).
[ snip ]
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
- Prev by Date: Re: Reading text file contents to a character buffer
- Next by Date: Re: "claim", etc. (was Re: C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing)
- Previous by thread: Re: "claim", etc. (was Re: C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing)
- Next by thread: Re: "claim", etc. (was Re: C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing)