Yes, this discussion is at an end, and I appear to have won on points.
Wow, that answers my question. None whatsoever. Dude, you were arguing with a random guy on the internet about whether a particular use of grammar was acceptable or not. In terms of victories, I think you have Pyrrhus beat.
I didn't point to the article. The person I first replied to did that. I just read it, and saw a line I agreed with generally, without much thought to its specific context.
If you're going to try to force your way into a mediatory position, it does help an awful lot to make sure you get your facts straight first.
(But then, the whole point of mediation is not taking sides, so it's good to see you drank the whole cup of fail this morning.)
Yeah, 'cause you clearly are incapable of stepping back from the keyboard yourself.
Anyway, it now becomes clear that somewhere along the line you misunderstood me, as you demonstrate here:
I was responding to your expressed agreement with him.
I expressed no such agreement, save that I thought a particular comment he made about a specific circumstance - whether he was right or wrong to apply it to that circumstance - was generally applicable.
Yeah, but you weren't discussing anything with me. I could tell that by the lack of reference to the point I was making. You were beating me over the head with your disagreement with Douglas Crockford's assessment of the HTML 5 committee. I'm not interested, sorry.
Besides, what on earth makes you think I do not see you as a specific individual? I only said I didn't want you to discuss something with me. Have more self-esteem. Believe that you stand out from the crowd. Free your inner snowflake!
Ah, yes. The definition with "-- Idiom" just above it, to section it off from the proper ones. Strike two.
But I presume, from your stated attitude, that you also happily regard "loose" as a valid synonym for "lose". If so, our premises are irreconcilable, and further discussion is fruitless; if not, you are simply saying that your arbitrary line is better than my arbitrary line, which isn't even worth arguing about.
If you disagree with Crockford's opinions, the appropriate person to argue with is Crockford. I pulled out a quote to make a general point, one with which Crockford might not even agree, yet you don't seem to be too interested in talking to me.
This was the sentence of Crockford's post that really leapt out at me:
It went off the rails when people started to just make new stuff up.
That's generally true of standards committees. When they're documenting existing practices and seeking consensus and convergence between them, they're in their element. When they decide they can start inventing, rather than consolidating, they lose the plot altogether...
Yes, but you're resorting to definition 8 of a dictionary which sets out to be comprehensively documentary rather than prescriptive, which it means it's down in the "encountered usage, not correct English" department.
(yet another mark to chalk up to "your evidence doesn't quite give you the support you think it does"...)
Whilst there is certainly innovation to be found all over the Free Software world, Linux (the kernel), GNU (the userspace collection) and the desktop environments ain't it. Kinda by definition - innovation and compliance (whether with standards or with users' preconceptions) are necessarily antonyms.
Linux the development process is a different matter, of course...
True to all of that - but because of the way the British political system is arranged, they still have a year during which they can pretty much fuck things up for whoever comes along next - even if they change leader there's not actually a requirement for a general election until 2010; they still have a substantial working majority; and the Lords can only defer legislation for a parliamentary term. If they really wanted to fuck it up for the Tories (just as the Tories were suspected of doing pre-1997) they could have some real fun.
Not to mention anyone who believes that the Tories' current excitement about libertarian issues is anything more than a vote-winning strategy has a very short memory indeed. Most of the illiberal measures Labour have enacted or announced were first mooted by the Tories when they were last in power - and for much the same reason, a desperate appeal to the lowest common denominator in a last-ditch scrabble for votes (Britain is sadly full of plebs who tend to regard civil liberties as weird and dangerous) - and nobody centralised quite like the Tories, all in the name of an efficiency that utterly failed to materialise (size ALWAYS adds overhead). Granted, there are some Tories who are staunch libertarians - there are even some Labour members who are staunch libertarians - but by and large, in this country the people attracted to power think they have a right or a duty to interfere in everyone else's lives.
It's not just that they peddle hate, it's that their journalist selection procedures are heavily weighted against triple-digit IQs or the barest minimum of integrity. Put bluntly, if it's in the Mail, it's best to assume that it's bullshit unless corroborated in a more reliable publication (although I'm tempted to suggest that the Weekly World News is an example of such...)
Incidentally, if those little babies were non-white, that'll be why they didn't run the story...
Wow, you appear to have said that without betraying a hint of irony. Well played.
I wasn't going to reply - I really don't need the last word; or, put another way, the bit where I said "I'm not interested in a discussion" should have been the last word - but you seem to need it quite desperately, and whereas in the past I've been content to let the person who needed it more have it, this time it amuses me to deprive you, for no other reason than that you annoyed me.
The trouble with marketing is that whatever you do, it isn't enough. Someone can always come along and market better, and in any case, the person who responds better to marketing than good solid evidence is probably not the person anyone really wants as a boss (unless being told to use X-of-the-week, even if it's manifestly unsuitable for the task at hand, appeals).
If marketing is the answer, the question is wrong.
...You know what? Never mind. If I don't care about giving you dick-sizing practice about something that does matter, I really don't care about perpetuating a discussion about whether or not I am actually going to discuss something.
You can have my marble. Tell your friend(s) that you won an argument on the Internet. Be happy.
I'm curious, so please enlighten me. Which part of "I'm not remotely interested in discussing this" is presently causing you difficulty? Which of the four words in my previous response gave you the impression I had reversed that stance?
(On the other hand, please don't take the above as any indication that I'm remotely interested in turning this into a discussion. I don't believe I can convince you, I'm pretty sure you won't convince me, and I honestly don't see what an argument about definitions would accomplish. I'm just making the point that if you want to start your argument by saying "yeah, but your definitions are wrong", you are then under some obligation to state clearly the right ones.)
This is only true because you've changed the definition of slavery.
Without telling me which definition you would prefer me to use, and hence exposing yourself to either having the validity of your own definition criticised or an argument that conditions in China meet even your own definition of slavery, that statement is meaningless.
Bullying is alive and well in every organisation over a certain size, not just schools. It's allowed to thrive because the management likes both its effect on the bottom line and the fact that it can pretend it doesn't sanction it.
The only solution to those systemic problems in large organisations is to not create large organisations - but that brings its own set of problems.
Yes, pitiful is one up from excruciating. Yes, comfortable is a very long way up from either.
Does that somehow render pitiful acceptable?
Like every other major civilisation, ours is fuelled on slavery. We just have the good taste to keep our slaves as far out of sight as possible, rather than having them under our feet; and we justify our slavery by telling ourselves we are civilising the primitives. 'Twas ever thus.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that answers my question. None whatsoever. Dude, you were arguing with a random guy on the internet about whether a particular use of grammar was acceptable or not. In terms of victories, I think you have Pyrrhus beat.
I didn't point to the article. The person I first replied to did that. I just read it, and saw a line I agreed with generally, without much thought to its specific context.
If you're going to try to force your way into a mediatory position, it does help an awful lot to make sure you get your facts straight first.
(But then, the whole point of mediation is not taking sides, so it's good to see you drank the whole cup of fail this morning.)
Have you no self-respect at all?!
Speaking from the UK, I recognise nothing left wing or hardcore liberal about Obama. Lots of centre-right stuff, but nothing remotely left.
The US' centre of political gravity is WAY off base.
What's really frightening is that you get to vote.
Yeah, 'cause you clearly are incapable of stepping back from the keyboard yourself.
Anyway, it now becomes clear that somewhere along the line you misunderstood me, as you demonstrate here:
I expressed no such agreement, save that I thought a particular comment he made about a specific circumstance - whether he was right or wrong to apply it to that circumstance - was generally applicable.
Do you want to have the last word now?
Yeah, but you weren't discussing anything with me. I could tell that by the lack of reference to the point I was making. You were beating me over the head with your disagreement with Douglas Crockford's assessment of the HTML 5 committee. I'm not interested, sorry.
Besides, what on earth makes you think I do not see you as a specific individual? I only said I didn't want you to discuss something with me. Have more self-esteem. Believe that you stand out from the crowd. Free your inner snowflake!
Ah, yes. The definition with "-- Idiom" just above it, to section it off from the proper ones. Strike two.
But I presume, from your stated attitude, that you also happily regard "loose" as a valid synonym for "lose". If so, our premises are irreconcilable, and further discussion is fruitless; if not, you are simply saying that your arbitrary line is better than my arbitrary line, which isn't even worth arguing about.
Either way, this discussion has reached an end.
If you disagree with Crockford's opinions, the appropriate person to argue with is Crockford. I pulled out a quote to make a general point, one with which Crockford might not even agree, yet you don't seem to be too interested in talking to me.
Rest assured, the feeling is mutual.
This was the sentence of Crockford's post that really leapt out at me:
That's generally true of standards committees. When they're documenting existing practices and seeking consensus and convergence between them, they're in their element. When they decide they can start inventing, rather than consolidating, they lose the plot altogether...
Yes, but you're resorting to definition 8 of a dictionary which sets out to be comprehensively documentary rather than prescriptive, which it means it's down in the "encountered usage, not correct English" department.
(yet another mark to chalk up to "your evidence doesn't quite give you the support you think it does"...)
You mean kind of like America?
(btw, it's "is composed of" or "comprises" rather than "is comprised of")
Whilst there is certainly innovation to be found all over the Free Software world, Linux (the kernel), GNU (the userspace collection) and the desktop environments ain't it. Kinda by definition - innovation and compliance (whether with standards or with users' preconceptions) are necessarily antonyms.
Linux the development process is a different matter, of course...
True to all of that - but because of the way the British political system is arranged, they still have a year during which they can pretty much fuck things up for whoever comes along next - even if they change leader there's not actually a requirement for a general election until 2010; they still have a substantial working majority; and the Lords can only defer legislation for a parliamentary term. If they really wanted to fuck it up for the Tories (just as the Tories were suspected of doing pre-1997) they could have some real fun.
Not to mention anyone who believes that the Tories' current excitement about libertarian issues is anything more than a vote-winning strategy has a very short memory indeed. Most of the illiberal measures Labour have enacted or announced were first mooted by the Tories when they were last in power - and for much the same reason, a desperate appeal to the lowest common denominator in a last-ditch scrabble for votes (Britain is sadly full of plebs who tend to regard civil liberties as weird and dangerous) - and nobody centralised quite like the Tories, all in the name of an efficiency that utterly failed to materialise (size ALWAYS adds overhead). Granted, there are some Tories who are staunch libertarians - there are even some Labour members who are staunch libertarians - but by and large, in this country the people attracted to power think they have a right or a duty to interfere in everyone else's lives.
Anyone else thinking "Uwe Boll does Star Wars"...?
It's not just that they peddle hate, it's that their journalist selection procedures are heavily weighted against triple-digit IQs or the barest minimum of integrity. Put bluntly, if it's in the Mail, it's best to assume that it's bullshit unless corroborated in a more reliable publication (although I'm tempted to suggest that the Weekly World News is an example of such...)
Incidentally, if those little babies were non-white, that'll be why they didn't run the story...
Wow, you appear to have said that without betraying a hint of irony. Well played.
I wasn't going to reply - I really don't need the last word; or, put another way, the bit where I said "I'm not interested in a discussion" should have been the last word - but you seem to need it quite desperately, and whereas in the past I've been content to let the person who needed it more have it, this time it amuses me to deprive you, for no other reason than that you annoyed me.
The trouble with marketing is that whatever you do, it isn't enough. Someone can always come along and market better, and in any case, the person who responds better to marketing than good solid evidence is probably not the person anyone really wants as a boss (unless being told to use X-of-the-week, even if it's manifestly unsuitable for the task at hand, appeals).
If marketing is the answer, the question is wrong.
...You know what? Never mind. If I don't care about giving you dick-sizing practice about something that does matter, I really don't care about perpetuating a discussion about whether or not I am actually going to discuss something.
You can have my marble. Tell your friend(s) that you won an argument on the Internet. Be happy.
I'm curious, so please enlighten me. Which part of "I'm not remotely interested in discussing this" is presently causing you difficulty? Which of the four words in my previous response gave you the impression I had reversed that stance?
Well, that's just presumptuous.
(On the other hand, please don't take the above as any indication that I'm remotely interested in turning this into a discussion. I don't believe I can convince you, I'm pretty sure you won't convince me, and I honestly don't see what an argument about definitions would accomplish. I'm just making the point that if you want to start your argument by saying "yeah, but your definitions are wrong", you are then under some obligation to state clearly the right ones.)
Without telling me which definition you would prefer me to use, and hence exposing yourself to either having the validity of your own definition criticised or an argument that conditions in China meet even your own definition of slavery, that statement is meaningless.
Bullying is alive and well in every organisation over a certain size, not just schools. It's allowed to thrive because the management likes both its effect on the bottom line and the fact that it can pretend it doesn't sanction it.
The only solution to those systemic problems in large organisations is to not create large organisations - but that brings its own set of problems.
Yes, pitiful is one up from excruciating. Yes, comfortable is a very long way up from either.
Does that somehow render pitiful acceptable?
Like every other major civilisation, ours is fuelled on slavery. We just have the good taste to keep our slaves as far out of sight as possible, rather than having them under our feet; and we justify our slavery by telling ourselves we are civilising the primitives. 'Twas ever thus.