Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread.
From: Paul Lutus (nospam_at_nosite.zzz)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: [EGN] Numerical Accuracy"
- Previous message: Jack Klein: "Re: How does this c - code work"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Next in thread: Richard Harter: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Reply: Richard Harter: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Reply: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:14:48 -0700
Edward G. Nilges wrote:
> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
> news:<10k59clj569431a@corp.supernews.com>...
>> name wrote:
>>
>> > I said I would post separately on an issue that arose in that thread.
>>
>> Stop this. You are off-topic in comp.programming. You may be surprised to
>> hear this newsgroup is not comp.philosophy.onanism.
>>
>> > Nevertheless, I've fulfilled my obligation to the thread I
>> > initiated, and I'm done here.
>>
>> You have already said this several times in different ways. There are
>> several hundred New Age newsgroups where your vacuous prose is more than
>> welcome.
>
> Why is it that people like "name", wtallman, who kin writ gude wif
> popper gramer and speling, are so often accused of "vacuity"?
But "name" really is vacuous in a catholic sense, it is not because of some
specific item of evidence. To see precisely how vacuous and clueless, read
this paper he wrote about (of all things) astrology:
http://cura.free.fr/quinq/02tallm.html
In this paper, he disregards the overhwelming scientific evidence that
astrology is bunk, top to bottom. He does his sworn duty to try to conceal
the utter lack of substance as young students are famous for doing -- bury
the truth in turgidity.
>
> Hell's bell's, why is it that I, who actually gets paid at times for
> writing (after, admittedly, long-suffering editors reduce some of my
> higher flights),
> am so often accused of turgidity, vacuity, prolixity,
> and obtusity?
Self-referential, funny, and very unlikely to have been posted without an
awareness of its self-referential traits.
> For in fact, prose that uses correct grammar and spelling, as does
> "name",
He cannot spell! Example, he thinks the plural of "tableau" is "tableaus".
Many such examples abound in his brainless prose.
> has a strong presumption in favor of NON-vacuity for the
> simple reason that all grammatical constructions have in most cases
> meaning UNLESS their syntactical grammar conceals semantic nonsense,
> as in Chomsky's example "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which
> poetic nonsense, "name" did not post.
>
> We can only conclude that the "vacuity" is a psychological event ...
Oh, for God's sake. You are either him or his clone. No one writes like this
who isn't severely medicated.
-- Paul Lutus http://www.arachnoid.com
- Next message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: [EGN] Numerical Accuracy"
- Previous message: Jack Klein: "Re: How does this c - code work"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Next in thread: Richard Harter: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Reply: Richard Harter: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Reply: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|