Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Aug 2005 02:08:51 -0400
In article <8f14c$42f6be5f$45491c57$28129@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article <c1871$42f4177f$45491c57$5646@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>No - I'm just, like Mr. Brazee, having a hard time believing that you're
>>>completely serious about this.
>> That might make it a bit more difficult to categorise, then, and require a
>> bit more thought on the matter... how horrid!
>Well, if you are serious, you don't want to know the thoughts I'm
>having. It doesn't require any more - I've already had them.
Then it might be wise to question your beliefs a bit more, to see if any
thoughts of value arise.
>>>It's not necessarily "answering" a
>>>question with a question, as the question is *not* meant to delay,
>>>obfuscate, or change the subject.
>> As Wittgenstein has it, meaning is the result of interpretation... 'I
>> cannot know what you mean, only what you say.' What is said is answering
>> a question with a question.
>And as you've repeated (in this thread, no less), that nothing is
I do not recall making such a statement and I would be very interested to
see a quoting of my writing in which I assert such. Mr Dashwood is, as I
recall, the one who has asserted an absolute belief that there are no
>>Yet, you treat any response ending in a question mark to an
>original question as a stalling tactic. You've said yourself that you
>find that that's what people *usually* do, but you treat it as if that's
>what people are *always* trying to do.
Once again, I would be interested your supplying a quotation which
supports this assertion. I have posted, I believe, something entirely
alternate at least three times and URLs to those postings several more
times... do I need to yet again? Try searching on the text:
--begin quoted text:
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
--end quoted text
.... and see if you can find statement where, clearly and unambiguously, I
draw attention to the fact that I refer to 'an overwhelming majority' and
>>>(1 - "What do you think?" 2 - "Well,
>>>what do *you* think?" - it's not that sort of thing)
>> Do tell... how is one to know this?
>How is one to know it *is* that? (for those keeping score at home, yes,
>that's a question in response to a question) You *assume* that any
>question as a response is an attempt to delay.
That has been addressed in the quotations and URLs given repeatedly, as
mentioned above. Now, please be so kind as to answer my question of 'Do
tell... how is one to know this?' ('this' referring to 'it's not that sort
>>>I don't know if I've got this word for word, but there's a saying that
>>>lawyers have that goes something like...
>>> - If the law is on your side, pound on the law.
>>> - If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
>>> - If neither is on your side, pound on the table.
>>>Your refusal to continue discourse when asked to clarify questions *you*
>>>posited in the course of said discussion seems to be little more than
>>>pounding on the table.
>> How interesting that you see it this way. I see it that not answering
>> questions is the 'refusal to continue discourse', you see that my pointing
>> this out is the refusal. This seems, to me, like believing that a
>> program's throwing a non-numeric divide error is the fault of the user
>> entering bad data, not the coder's lack of numeric testing.
>You refuse to attribute even a smidgen of pure motives to those with
>whom you are discussing.
If that were the case I might be loth to resume discourse once the form of
answering a question with a question has been changed... and this is not,
in my experience, the case.
>To some observers (and as has been evidenced
>in this thread, it's not just me), it looks like *you* don't want to
>answer the question.
I cannot be held responsible for their interpretations... as noted above,
once a non-answer is changed to an answer things can continue along on
their merry way.
>Rather than clarify your statement (which would
>require to answering a question posed as a response to a question with a
>real answer, instead of the auto-responder), you trot out your standard
There's a reason for my doing that... and it has been posted and reposted,
repeatedly, to the point where at least one reader has reconsidered his
behavior in light of it. Have you read it, perchance?
>There's no really good way to take it, either. If you're trying to
>delay, you get miffed that you were called on it. If you just wanted
>clarification, it comes across as either *you* trying to delay; or an
>attempt to claim some sort of high ground based on technique; or just
>flat condescending. In all but the first, it hampers the discourse, not
The first few times, being a non-standard response, there might be a bit
of stumbling... or for pettifogging, niggling, legalistic sticklers there
might be a bit of a delay - 'Well, what about if it is Tuesday in Estonia
and the local scissors-grinder has just celebrated his daughter's
betrothal to the brewer's left-handed middle son... might not *then* be a
time when answering a question with a question is, truly, an answer? -
(the answer, of course, is 'no')... but I have found that with a bit of
time it facilitates things.
This is, of course, only my experience.
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Prev by Date: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by Date: data conversion
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code