Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC
From: Bob Dawson (bdawson_at_idtdna.com)
Date: 08/30/04
- Previous message: John Kaster (Borland): "Re: What Delphi users really want (other than bugfixes)"
- In reply to: Derek Davidson: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Next in thread: Kirk Halgren: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Reply: Kirk Halgren: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:56:48 -0500
"Derek Davidson" wrote
> that much effort into it, at least admit it instead of chastising
> others for being unable to read your intentions.
Language and communication are inherently a bit slippery, so the attempt to
make a communication definitively specific and determinate (impossible to
misinterpret) is ultimately self-defeating--it results in totally unreadable
legalese (in law), and esoteric traditions of endless hermeneutic
reinterpretation (literature and religion).
The only thing impossible to misinterpret is the void, and only that on the
grounds of credibility (all interpretations of nothingness are
self-evidently misinterpretations because there is nothing to mean).
The best one can hope for is to be reasonably clear to a neutral or better
audience; it just isn't possible to write in a manner so clear and
unambiguous that an unfriendly interpretor would not be able to twist one's
meaning.
Eric was not playing the part of a "neutral or better audience" audience, so
I see no point in Nick trying to appease his distortions, and your
injunction to try to write more clearly is plainly off the point.
bobD
- Previous message: John Kaster (Borland): "Re: What Delphi users really want (other than bugfixes)"
- In reply to: Derek Davidson: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Next in thread: Kirk Halgren: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Reply: Kirk Halgren: "Re: Borland, Diamondback and QC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]