makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 24 Jun 2010 23:47 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:37:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 25, 12:19�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> >wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >If listeners have an appreciable chance of >> >misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what >> >they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. >> >> --- >> Got an example? >> --- > >Go find a linguistics text-book. Individual tutoring is reserved for >students with some evidence of talent. --- So you don't have an example? --- >> >This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication >> >system that we call language. >> >> --- >> Oh, nice words but, it seems to me that what you want to do is to is >> denigrate the feedback so that you're the only one left in charge. > >Since I'm telling you what linguists tell me, usually after I've got >some detail wrong, I don't quite see how this recapitulation of >elementary linguistic theory puts me "in charge". --- It doesn't, and you obviously missed the sarcasm, which is telling. Go back to your tooter. --- >I suppose that if you were silly enough to think that I could pose as >an expert on linguistics, --- Regardless of your posture, I don't think _anyone_ would be that silly. --- >you might be able to see the interaction in >this light, but do try to be realistic. I'm not posting on >linguistslist, or language log, where real linguists hang out > >http://linguistlist.org/ > >http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?page_id=2 --- Sounds like a good idea, to me, but then that raises the question of why you're posting here, where real electronics designers hang out. --- >but I was just correcting an ill-informed misconception. AlwaysWrong >does need a lot of correction, as even you might have noticed. --- Prongy isn't always wrong, and the problem with you and your ilk is that instead of graciously correcting his errors in an effort to help him save face and make things better, you're always looking for a scapegoat to kick into submission.
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Jun 2010 06:17 On Jun 25, 5:47 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:37:11 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 25, 12:19 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> > >wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >> >If listeners have an appreciable chance of > >> >misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what > >> >they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. > > >> --- > >> Got an example? > >> --- > > >Go find a linguistics text-book. Individual tutoring is reserved for > >students with some evidence of talent. > > --- > So you don't have an example? > --- To waste on you? > >> >This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication > >> >system that we call language. > > >> --- > >> Oh, nice words but, it seems to me that what you want to do is to is > >> denigrate the feedback so that you're the only one left in charge. > > >Since I'm telling you what linguists tell me, usually after I've got > >some detail wrong, I don't quite see how this recapitulation of > >elementary linguistic theory puts me "in charge". > > --- > It doesn't, and you obviously missed the sarcasm, which is telling. Sarcasm? It looks more like straightforward abuse, based on one of you usual bizarre misinterpretations of what was going on. DrParnassus isn't up to generating "feedback". He just posted a silly objection the contraction "It'd" and backed it up by reference to a false authority that he didn't bother either citing or referencing with a URL. I slapped him down - as we are obliged to - and a few others joined the party. > Go back to your tooter. > --- > > >I suppose that if you were silly enough to think that I could pose as > >an expert on linguistics, > > --- > Regardless of your posture, I don't think _anyone_ would be that > silly. > --- But your attempt at sarcasm depended on making that irrational assumption. > >you might be able to see the interaction in > >this light, but do try to be realistic. I'm not posting on > >linguistslist, or language log, where real linguists hang out > > >http://linguistlist.org/ > > >http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?page_id=2 > > --- > Sounds like a good idea, to me, but then that raises the question of > why you're posting here, where real electronics designers hang out. > --- Perhaps because I'm a real electronics designer, even if I design stuff that you couldn't comprehend. > >but I was just correcting an ill-informed misconception. AlwaysWrong > >does need a lot of correction, as even you might have noticed. > > --- > Prongy isn't always wrong, and the problem with you and your ilk is > that instead of graciously correcting his errors in an effort to help > him save face and make things better, you're always looking for a > scapegoat to kick into submission. AlwaysWrong doesn't play nice. He not only posted egregious nonsense, but also impugns the intellectual capacity of all the people he disagrees with. I admit to impugning your intellectual ability in most of my coments on your posts, which isn't nice of me, but you post such egregious nonsense yourself that I don't have any option. I'm less critical of John Larkin and Jim Thompson, who are merely guilty of persistent over-confident ignorance, and can be civil to pravtically everybody else. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Greegor on 25 Jun 2010 06:32 Hey, leave Archie alone! LOL
From: John Larkin on 25 Jun 2010 10:56 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 25, 5:47�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:37:11 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jun 25, 12:19�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> >> >wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >If listeners have an appreciable chance of >> >> >misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what >> >> >they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. >> >> >> --- >> >> Got an example? >> >> --- >> >> >Go find a linguistics text-book. Individual tutoring is reserved for >> >students with some evidence of talent. >> >> --- >> So you don't have an example? >> --- > >To waste on you? > >> >> >This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication >> >> >system that we call language. >> >> >> --- >> >> Oh, nice words but, it seems to me that what you want to do is to is >> >> denigrate the feedback so that you're the only one left in charge. >> >> >Since I'm telling you what linguists tell me, usually after I've got >> >some detail wrong, I don't quite see how this recapitulation of >> >elementary linguistic theory puts me "in charge". >> >> --- >> It doesn't, and you obviously missed the sarcasm, which is telling. > >Sarcasm? It looks more like straightforward abuse, based on one of you >usual bizarre misinterpretations of what was going on. > >DrParnassus isn't up to generating "feedback". He just posted a silly >objection the contraction "It'd" and backed it up by reference to a >false authority that he didn't bother either citing or referencing >with a URL. I slapped him down - as we are obliged to - and a few >others joined the party. > >> Go back to your tooter. >> --- >> >> >I suppose that if you were silly enough to think that I could pose as >> >an expert on linguistics, >> >> --- >> Regardless of your posture, I don't think _anyone_ would be that >> silly. >> --- > >But your attempt at sarcasm depended on making that irrational >assumption. > >> >you might be able to see the interaction in >> >this light, but do try to be realistic. I'm not posting on >> >linguistslist, or language log, where real linguists hang out >> >> >http://linguistlist.org/ >> >> >http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?page_id=2 >> >> --- >> Sounds like a good idea, to me, but then that raises the question of >> why you're posting here, where real electronics designers hang out. >> --- > >Perhaps because I'm a real electronics designer, even if I design >stuff that you couldn't comprehend. > >> >but I was just correcting an ill-informed misconception. AlwaysWrong >> >does need a lot of correction, as even you might have noticed. >> >> --- >> Prongy isn't always wrong, and the problem with you and your ilk is >> that instead of graciously correcting his errors in an effort to help >> him save face and make things better, you're always looking for a >> scapegoat to kick into submission. > >AlwaysWrong doesn't play nice. He not only posted egregious nonsense, >but also impugns the intellectual capacity of all the people he >disagrees with. > >I admit to impugning your intellectual ability in most of my coments >on your posts, which isn't nice of me, but you post such egregious >nonsense yourself that I don't have any option. > >I'm less critical of John Larkin and Jim Thompson, who are merely >guilty of persistent over-confident ignorance, and can be civil to >pravtically everybody else. Would it be uncivil of me to call you a bunch of decrepid, squabbling old hens? John
From: Pieyed Piper on 25 Jun 2010 11:40
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:56:41 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Would it be uncivil of me to call you a bunch of decrepid, squabbling >old hens? > >John What are you though, assessment boy? I know the answer. |