makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 25 Jun 2010 12:27 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:40:12 -0700, Pieyed Piper <pieyedPiper(a)thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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? What language are you writing in? > > I know the answer. I suspect you are a member of that same coop. How old are you, anyhow? Some people age gracefully, some don't. John
From: Pieyed Piper on 25 Jun 2010 12:50 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:27:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Some people age gracefully, some don't. Bet I look better than you. Bet your corpse would rot faster lying in state than mine as well.
From: John Fields on 25 Jun 2010 12:54 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? --- Nope; to prove to everyone that you know what you're talking about. --- >> >> >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. --- As I said, you missed it. --- >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. --- Please... --- >> >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. --- And rightly so, in some instances. But so what? If you consider yourself to be his intellectual superior, then why are you treating him in ways which you find scornful in others? --- >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. --- "See what you made me do?", eh? --- >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. --- As long as you don't perceive them as threats, don't you mean? JF
From: TheQuickBrownFox on 25 Jun 2010 13:09 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:54:25 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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? > >--- >Nope; to prove to everyone that you know what you're talking about. >--- > >>> >> >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. > >--- >As I said, you missed it. >--- > >>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. > >--- >Please... >--- > >>> >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. > >--- >And rightly so, in some instances. > >But so what? > >If you consider yourself to be his intellectual superior, then why are >you treating him in ways which you find scornful in others? >--- > >>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. > >--- >"See what you made me do?", eh? >--- > >>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. > >--- >As long as you don't perceive them as threats, don't you mean? > >JF I have never seen Larkin or Thompson make disparaging remark about anyone... Naaawwww.... never. Not them... I would never turn a friendly card in return.
From: John Fields on 25 Jun 2010 13:51
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? --- One wonders why you'd even bother to post a question like that. JF |