Re: Java 7 features

In article <1188790215.031867.196810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Twisted <twisted0n3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 1, 12:58 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I said that I had run across this usage in other people's posts.
No mention of where. I'm not sure how you'd get from that an
implication that it was in a pop-culture newsgroup. I don't
really follow any of those either, at least by my definition of
pop culture.

> > > [1] "Seinfeld".

That is, if I'm not too much mistaken, pop culture. Or, at least, what
passes for "culture" these days, anyway.

You said (or at least implied) that you found it in a Seinfeld
newsgroup. It's pretty much a given that such a newsgroup is one of
rec.fan, alt.fan, or foreign-language. :P

Here for the record is my first mention of Seinfeld:

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].

[1] "Seinfeld".

[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

I don't understand how you get from that an implication that I
found this silly thing in a Seinfeld newsgroup. Why would I be
reading such a group, given that -- as I stated -- I'm not a fan?

Anyway, do you never come across references to pop culture
in newsgroups devoted to other topics? I do, and sometimes I
remember them, despite being generally ignorant of pop culture.
I guess I assume that if *I* know a pop-culture reference, most
others will as well. Apparently not .... Well. I'm getting
defensive here, and that's no good.

But rather than speculate about where this silly thing is used,
how about some data ....

[ snip ]

It's only ever been used for the first time by you the other day in
CLJP, which nonetheless made #10 on this list. That makes it pretty
darn obscure.

Not true, according to a quick search of Google's archives -- but
the previous mention was in a post by, um, me, in February 2006.
Hm.

Worth noting nearly every other group on the list is a
fan group of some sort -- and I'd class a.r.k. in that category. :P

The entry just above cjlp is alt.usage.english. Very likely
that's where I came across this silly thing -- it's a group I
follow, though not always closely. Digging a little deeper into
the archives, I notice that some people there also had to have
the thing explained. Hm.

And it still stands that you apparently thought it had more widespread
Usenet currency, when as it turns out it doesn't...

I don't know how you get that. *You* don't recognize it, but another
poster in this thread did (Kurt).

It clearly doesn't have very widespread currency OR I'D HAVE FUCKING
SEEN IT BEFORE YOU NITWIT. :P Sheesh! I've been using Usenet for
years, so if I haven't seen it before, it's either new or obscure
pretty much by definition.

I also have been using Usenet for years, and I *had* come across
it -- and not in one of those fan newsgroups, because as noted,
I don't follow those. So we have two people who recognize it,
and one who doesn't.

But much as it pains me to say so, especially after being called a
nitwit, I'll concede that two out of three isn't, in this context,
an overwhelming majority, and you probably have a point that this
silly initialism is not one I should be slinging around in cjlp.

[ snip ]

Sometimes when you (and that's a generic you) make a guess about
something, even a very logical guess, it turns out to be wrong.
I could make a guess, for example, that you (Twisted) are male,
based on the fact that everyone refers to you as "he" and you
don't correct them. But I don't have any way to know for sure,
and I recognize that there's some possibility that I'm wrong, and
if that turned out to be the case, I'd probably just say "well,
that's interesting" and try to remember the information for future
reference, without thinking that the person who pointed out my
error had insulted me. Perhaps your mileage varies, as they say.

Despite the implied criticism, that either there was a flaw in your
logic (= you are stupid) or you should simply have already known the
answer (= you are an ignoramus)?

For me it might depend on how the error was pointed out. I don't
think I automatically take "you're wrong" as an insult. But it's
hard to know in the abstract. I don't get corrected in public
very often by peers, only by people lower in the pecking order
(students in my classes -- I teach undergrad CS), and they seem
pretty good at pointing out mistakes politely ("why did you do
it that way?" "because I made a mistake -- glad you caught it").
I don't take these as insults -- I'm mildly embarrassed about
being caught in a mistake, but glad it was spotted.

Mighty generous of you to let those slide but sooner or later it will
result in your having a reputation for being a stupid ignoramus if
such perceptions about you propagate uncorrected by you, won't it?

Well, my thinking is that admitting a mistake in public adds to
my credibility rather than reducing it (because it indicates that
I'm more interested in truth and facts than in being perceived
as always right). I guess if it happened more often than not the
results would be different. And, as usual, your mileage may vary.

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.

Quantcast