Re: "Shared" procedure division code

In article <juYHe.59920$mC.8865@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jce <defaultuser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dcp6jc$od9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <3lagdmF11gr30U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:dcoec5$hsl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> In article <dcobr4$bu0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>On 2-Aug-2005, docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>> Leaving aside that I barely know what *I* believe, let alone anyone
>>>>>> else... assuming this to be true it begs the question: believes to be
>>>>>> belief or believes to be fact?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you using the common definition of "begs the question" or the
>>>>>classical one?
>>>>
>>>> Answering a question with a question is no answer at all.
>>>>
>>>Maybe not, Doc, but it is a fair way to seek clarification before
>>>embarking
>>>on discussion.
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, how is it more 'fair' than responding 'I cannot answer until
>> you clarify (x). If you intend (x1) then a conclusion might be (y1), if
>> you intend (x2) then (y3).
>Why waste time discussing (y3) if you intended (x1)?

The intention is not apparent, hence the demonstration.

[snip]

>How does taking an interrogative phrase 'do you mean (x is x1) or (x is
>x2)?' and rephrasing it as an declarative phrase 'I cannot answer until you
>clarify if (x is x1) or (x is x2)' make any difference? Other than in the
>first there is a request for information to continue, and the latter is just
>a statement and has the potential to end the sorry discussion.

The reformulation avoids answering a question with a question... which, of
course, is no answer at all.

>
>> Yes, it takes more words than answering a question with a question... but
>> just about anything worthwhile takes a bit of effort and avoiding giving
>> no answer at all might be worthwhile.
>
>>>The response could vary here, depending on your answer to the question.
>>
>> Or the response is one of answering a question with a question, seeking to
>> dodge and obfuscate.
>If the question is non specific. The question was specific - do you mean x1
>or x2? This is not dodging or obfuscating. In fact, I would say that this
>would appear to be _seeking_ further conversation - not a dodging.

What Mr Brazee continued with ('I noticed you did not answer my question')
appears to me to be more in line with an objection and explanation I
posted a while back... interestingly enough, also in an exchange with Mr
Brazee, from

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/c5ffed30915f7f6b?dmode=source&hl=en>

--begin quoted text:

It is possible, in my experience, to determine further data without
answering a question with a question... which is, as noted above, no
answer at all. The reasons I use in considering it as such I posted a
while back... ah:

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/967c9d77a4959544?dmode=source&hl=en>

--begin quoted text:

I thought I'd addressed this here but perhaps not, it might have been in
another venue.

Quite openly and honestly: I find that for the overwhelming majority of
cases answering a question with a question is a stall, a dodge or some way
to avoid/evade the original query; the 'air' that it carries is 'I cannot
answer your question so... I'll ask one of you and if you cannot answer it
then in some way we'll both be even and our arguments will cancel each
other out, maybe I can even assume a bit of smug superiority by having
posed the last, unanswerable question.'

Note that I said 'overwhelming majority of cases', not 'all'... but I have
*never* found a case where the answering question could not be phrased in
a manner that would turn the dialogue away from the seriocomic interchange
you posted into something a bit closer to what I would call 'rational
discourse'. Consider the differences between:

'Yeah? Well, what about (condition)?'
'Whaddaya mean, (condition)?'

.... and ...

'Yeah? Well, what about (condition)?'
'I cannot address that until you make it clear what criteria you are using
to establish the existence of (condition)?'

Now turning the discord of Duelling Interrogatories into the harmony of
Rational Discourse might require something called 'honesty' and
'integrity' as the tactics involve using such phrases as 'I don't know' or
'I cannot address that' or 'I cannot see the relationship'... but if such
things are uncomfortable they can, with a bit of practise, be hidden
without forcing folks to fall back into mutual queries.

This having been said - that in the overwhelming majority of cases it is
used as an evasion instead of an answer and that there are, as noted
above, structures readily available to render its use unnecessary - then
the conclusion is that the technique of answering a question with a
question is treated as an ALTER and should be structured out of existence.

('Yeah? What about replacing it with a called Assembley module?' 'I don't
know what I would say about that without reading the code; if you have it
available I would be most interested in reading it *first* and *then*
rendering an opinion... but I *do* know that replacing things in such
manner usually does not eliminate the structural flaws, it merely shifts
them.')

--end quoted text

(note - in quoting this I noticed an error in my punctuation, ''I cannot
address that until you make it clear what criteria you are using to
establish the existence of (condition)?'' should have been rendered as ''I
cannot address that until you make it clear what criteria you are using to
establish the existence of (condition).'')

But wait... there's more! From even longer back, in another forum:

<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/34b3233328d534e1?dmode=source&hl=en>

--begin quoted text:

Different folks enjoy, appreciate and benefit from different styles of
interaction, of course... one size fits none and all that; it is good that
you enjoy this sort of interaction and find benefit in it.

Me, I've found that not everyone is a rabbi (what a surprise!) and that
the tactic of answering a question with a question is employed less often
to teach and more often to dodge... this observation is not, granted,
universally true (no observation is, of course... including this one) but
I've found it often enough to be the case. At times, of course, it can
get downright infantile:

A: 'What are the suppositions and logic you employed in reaching this
conclusion?'

B: 'What suppositions and logic would *you* employ to reach this
conclusion?'

A: 'I cannot see *any* set of suppositions and logic which might be
employed to reach this conclusion, hence my asking you this.'

B: 'Well don't blame *me* because *you* can't see things... you must be a
poopie-head, nyah nyah nyah!'


.... and such a situation, at time, might just possibly be avoided by the
judicious invoking of 'Answering a question with a question is no answer
at all; please be so kind as to address the query.'

--end quoted text

--end quoted text

DD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
    ... 'I cannot address that until you make it clear what criteria you are using ... structures readily available to render its use unnecessary - then ... question is treated as an ALTER and should be structured out of existence. ... 'What are the suppositions and logic you employed in reaching this ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Landis Hearing Closed
    ... My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations ... COUNTRY and decided that the evidence wasn't complete enough to warrant any ... UCI should be up on criminal charges and not just sued out of existence. ... Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me
    ... answer than science or an answer because science cannot answer. ... We were kind of piling on John there for awhile so it is probably a breath of fresh air to find out that on other topics, you, Rita and I would probably disagree and John might possibly agree with one of us. ... but a response to the question of existence when framed ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Fractional Transforms
    ... X = Y. Of course this doesn't quite rule out the existence ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ... Thanks for the response - from both you and Robert. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Quick Question!
    ... Not sure how compelling it is, but a window should be expected to render ... then it needs to conform to this reasonable expectation. ... start exploring transparent controls -- the only reliable way I've found to ... portion in response to your own WM_ERASEBKGND. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)