Re: Great SWT Program

On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
No, YOU keep changing the subject.

[nonsense deleted]

Yes, you do. And you seem to be trying to do so again.

See above. See earlier posts on the subject.

Can't.

[vicious insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Can't, because I haven't done what you accuse me of at all, of course.

I don't respond well to threats.

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Bogus. What I said stands.

[implies that I'm being dishonest]

False. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

No doubt I'll also start beating my servant girl as well as continuing
to beat my wife, too.

[insults and false accusations deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

The only one reducing terms to meaninglessness around here is you, of
course, redefining everything when it suits you, or simply insisting
that all discussions use emacs terminology instead of the normal
terminology for the same things.

It is considered opportune to use the terms of whatever field one is
discussing

Which field would be "text editing" in this case.

For example, if document-editing acts up you'll just say "it's not a
document, it's a *buffer*!"

This should be a clue to you, of course, that when a "document" seems
to "act up" to you it's probably because it's not an actual "document"
at all.

Nonsense. A document is a document is a document. You cannot excuse
software misbehavior and standards-violation on a technicality simply
by using a different name for it and then claiming that it doesn't
violate the standard. Should I simply be able to call a gun a
"flashlight" and thereby exempt myself from laws requiring a permit
before I can carry a concealed weapon? When confronted by an officer,
if I say "It's not a gun, it's a flashlight" should that give me a
free pass? According to your linguistic-constructivist postmodernistic
nonsense above, apparently it should. If it should not, then likewise
"It's not a document, it's a buffer" shouldn't give emacs a free pass
here, and any misbehavior and standards-violation is misbehavior and
standards-violation no matter what you decide to call the thing that
is a de-facto document, much as carrying that concealed projectile-
launching "flashlight" is still carrying a concealed (de-facto) gun.

and insist that all bets are off. If
accepted, that sort of argument simply makes the word "document"
meaningless.

No, it makes the word meaningful - you are trying to reduce it to
meaninglessness by calling /any/ block of text on the screen a
"document".

No, I am calling any *document*, as in an information object the user
generates and works on, a document. Any *document*, as in an open file
or similar entity in a document-oriented app such as any kind of
editor, a document.

Your argument allows anyone to declare any object, however gun-like,
to be not a gun simply by claiming that it is something else.

Mine calls a gun a gun and a document a document.

And a spade a spade.

Any complaint about document handling on the part of any
software can then be handled simply by insisting that "it's not a
document, it's a foo".

And if it /is/, indeed, a foo

Irrelevant. If it is a document (including both a foo AND a document),
and it's mishandled as such, then the user has a problem.

Should one of those military-issue assault rifles with a built-in
flashlight be effectively exempt from gun control laws because I can
say "it's a flashlight, officer!" and it actually IS a flashlight,
even though it's also a gun? :P

The same exact reasoning could, if any judge and jury in the land
would accept it, get you off the hook for murder simply by saying the
victim "wasn't a human being, he was a vampire!" or some such rot.

[snip accusation of dishonesty]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Also, see above re: gun, lack of permit, and creative redefinition.

Of course, you rationalize that it's *clearly* not a document (or a
command line, or whatever) *because* the software doesn't treat it in
the standard fashion, but that's pure circular reasoning there.

It's not a document because it doesn't fill the requirements for a
document.

But it does: it's data generated by the user (perhaps with the aid of
automation) and displayed in a document-editing-type app's main
editing area.

It isn't a command line because it doesn't fill the requirements for
a command line.

But it does: it's a command that the user types in and submits that,
when submitted, instructs the software to do something.

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

It's
like saying your victim *was* a vampire because if he'd been human you
obviously wouldn't have killed him! :P

[irrelevant digression deleted]

*pulls trigger* *dry click* See, Officer, it's obviously not a gun,
because a gun would have fired a bullet when I did that! *Officer
moves on, placated* *Twisted now loads the weapon, undoes the safety,
and points it at Bent*

:P

[nasty sex-related insults deleted]

[more nasty sex-related insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true, pervert.

Shocking, Bent. Simply shocking. Seek professional help, before you're
singlehandedly responsible for starting the next AIDS-type pandemic
with a sexually-transmitted zoonosis. :P

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

If you haven't seen them, then they simply never propagated to your
news server.

Nor to Google Groups

They're there. It's not my fault if you can't find them, but the facts
remain: I've seen them there with my own two eyes.

Though that seems unlikely since you seem to have posted
followups to, and quoted, a large fraction of them.

[insults and pure fantasy deleted]

Nonsense. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about
me are at all true.

The topic, lest you forget, is emacs and how it's unfit for human
consumption. :P

[more nonsense deleted]

Bent has not adequately addressed the above. Point: Twisted. Emacs'
unfitness for human use having been conceded by Bent, I declare
victory. End of thread.

They can fucking Google it if they're really curious and didn't
already read the predecessor post.

[insult deleted]

You're wrong, and none of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.

Baloney. I don't know *anyone* that uses computers a lot for school-
or office-related purposes that *doesn't* work with written language a
lot in the process. In fact, there are surely hundreds of millions of
people in the world who do so.

[insult deleted]

If by that you mean that I use the normal English meaning of the word
"text" instead of some sort of emacsese or Bent-world redefinition of
the term, then yes.

Regardless, none of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.

SETI took a wrong turn. They were supposed to find extraterrestrial
INTELLIGENCE, not extraterrestrial IMBECILES! Let alone rig something
up so as to give the latter unmonitored net access. Makes me want to
destroy every radio telescope in the world, one by one, until you stop
posting, then fix all but the last one I'd wrecked. :P

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

I recommend /some/ users of modern tools to augment them with another
highly efficient modern tool, anyway.

That's a big change, Bent, from recommending they dump them all and
take up knitting, er, I mean, emacs. :P

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

What modern tool? Eclipse or NetBeans? (Since you seemed to have
mainly programmers in mind even when you kept saying "anyone who edits
text a lot".) Or something else?

They can use whatever modern tools they find useful, of course.

A highly enlightened attitude. I take it our differences are settled,
then, and I will see no further postings from you to this thread,
disputing about emacs and other such archaic junk?

I'm still right and you're still wrong. As you seem to have realized
above when you decided to start recommending a modern tool instead,
though you still haven't said *which* modern tool.

That would be because I believe in user choice and so I would let them
choose for themselves.

So you're dropping the pro-emacs crusade? For real?

OK then. End of thread.

They are de-facto standards. I have nothing to do with this. I'm just
the messenger.

No

YES, I AM.

You are shooting at you? Then why don't you stop already?

I am the messenger, moron. YOU are shooting at ME.

[insults and more kinky sex, this time involving excrement]

[puts words in my mouth and insults me]

Liar. You were the first one to bring sex into this, and the first to
then bring in excrement, though you used a less polite word when you
did so.

And, of course, none of the nasty things that you have said or implied
about me are at all true.

Someone find Bent his missing Thorazine injection for today. Pretty
please?

[insults and accusations of illegal activity deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

It is not, however, "a command".

Sure it is. Unless you really do get to decide by fiat whether any
given command is "a command" or not. :P

No, of course not, but[snip!]

No. No buts. A command is a command is a command.

Of course not. I am not your personal emacs tutor.

*shudder* I need one of those like I need a hole in the head; and even
if I really did want one, the last one I'd want is *you*. :P

[puts words in my mouth; implied insults deleted]

Wrong. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

What I have complained about being your descriptions of emacs having
internal inconsistencies, and your saying things that derive from
hidden (and usually questionable) assumptions that you don't bother to
make explicit until a long time after having been explicitly asked
to. :P

But you are trying to convince people to use emacs, and trying to
explain things about it. Failing to mention important and salient
things, making other things you said more confusing, can't serve your
purposes very well.

[denies that he's failing to convince people to use emacs]

Oh but you are, Bent, you are. Your failure is colossal in its
magnitude already, and you add to it with every new ridiculously-long
post you write.

You have likewise failed in your futile quest to destroy me and all
others who blaspheme against your sacred idols. (Why feeping creature
idols? Sun gods and warrior gods and goddesses of the harvest I can
see, but feeping creatures?)

Except, of course, if your purpose is actually
merely to sow confusion, of course, which I strongly suspect to indeed
be the case. Which would make you a troll, I believe, at least
technically. :P

[numerous insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Ah, very convincing.

The Google Groups archive will be even more so, of course

[implied insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Command lines typed in and followed up with a press of enter ARE "key
sequences that make something happen", of course.

That they are

Well, there we are then.

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
.

Quantcast