Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

  1. #1
    Larry Linson Guest

    Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    Zane Thomas has demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty in quoting me only
    partially and then implying that I was lying by his concealing the very part
    of my quote that answered the question he used to imply that I was lying.
    If he is this intellectually dishonest just to try to smear someone with
    whom he disagrees, how can even those who agree with him that VB.NET is good
    trust what he has to say about VB.NET or anything else?

    Here is what I wrote, the entire paragraph from which he quoted:

    > I also do not see sufficient benefits
    > to using VB.NET for those applications
    > that would warrant investing that time and
    > energy in learning it. I could do them in
    > Fujitsu COBOL, or Delphi, or other languages,
    > too, but there wouldn't be any benefit, or
    > insufficient benefit, to warrant my learning
    > those. I can't speak to the effort involved,
    > though some have contended that it's more
    > efficient to do such apps in Delphi (But,
    > given that I have never been fond of Pascal,
    > Delphi has never been something I was
    > interested in pursuing.).


    Here’s how Zane quoted and responded:

    > > I also do not see sufficient benefits to
    > > using VB.NET ...


    > That might be because you haven't actually
    > tried writing real code on vb.net, or the
    > .net platform in general. Is that true Larry?
    > Go ahead, tell the truth.


    Zane, and perhaps others as well, will no doubt be happy to know that I have
    decided that it was a mistake to drop back in here after my earlier decision
    that it was useless to attempt rational discussion with overenthusiastic
    supporters of .NET. That was as a result of Zane equating an abacus with
    an electronic computer when it suited his purposes in discussion, and after
    Kunle contending that the difference between a teletype and a supercomputer
    was only a matter of degree.

    Adding to that this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty and that he
    whines when anyone not a proponent of .NET answers inflammatory language
    and name-calling in kind. As of this posting, no Section Leader nor Moderator
    has considered that blatant example of intellectual dishonesty by Zane, a
    .NET proponent and fellow Section Leader/Moderator, was worth even a mild
    admonition. That confirms to me that honest and rational discussion not only
    is not encouraged, but is impossible here.

    I won’t be dropping back in again.




  2. #2
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    Larry -- Color me stupid, but I don't see the problem with Zane's response
    in this case. If you drop back again please explain.

    Realize that few of us who pound code for a living are able to write prose
    like Hemmingway. You knew what you *meant* when you wrote your paragraph,
    but the rest of us just had the words. To me, your lead sentence is similar
    to "I don't see the benefits in learning to ride a bicycle," and Zane's
    reply is similar to "Maybe you need to learn to *ride* the bike before you
    can *understand* the benefits." Zane's reply continues in a fashion I think
    guarantees the State Department will not conscript him for a diplomatic
    mission but that's his style and I have no problem with it. I know other
    successful people in absolutely no danger of a diplomatic career. ;-)

    -- Mark

    > Here is what I wrote, the entire paragraph from which he quoted:
    >
    > > I also do not see sufficient benefits
    > > to using VB.NET for those applications
    > > that would warrant investing that time and
    > > energy in learning it. I could do them in
    > > Fujitsu COBOL, or Delphi, or other languages,
    > > too, but there wouldn't be any benefit, or
    > > insufficient benefit, to warrant my learning
    > > those. I can't speak to the effort involved,
    > > though some have contended that it's more
    > > efficient to do such apps in Delphi (But,
    > > given that I have never been fond of Pascal,
    > > Delphi has never been something I was
    > > interested in pursuing.).

    >
    > Here's how Zane quoted and responded:
    >
    > > > I also do not see sufficient benefits to
    > > > using VB.NET ...

    >
    > > That might be because you haven't actually
    > > tried writing real code on vb.net, or the
    > > .net platform in general. Is that true Larry?
    > > Go ahead, tell the truth.





  3. #3
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    "Mark Jerde" <jerde@sanspamcompuserve.com> wrote in message <news:3bad4aa1$1@news.devx.com>...

    > Larry -- Color me stupid, but I don't see the problem with Zane's response
    > in this case. If you drop back again please explain.


    "In this case"? Are there other cases Larry should have mentioned instead?

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



  4. #4
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    > > Larry -- Color me stupid, but I don't see the problem with
    > > Zane's response
    > > in this case. If you drop back again please explain.

    >
    > "In this case"? Are there other cases Larry should have
    > mentioned instead?


    I was trying to tell Larry I didn't see any problem with Zane's response.

    "In this case" means I don't always agree with Zane, especially in the OR...
    <g>

    -- Mark





  5. #5
    Mikael Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote:

    >Zane Thomas has demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty..


    Why is this newsgroup always making me depressed..?

    Perhaps I should stop reading it for good..

    Mikael

  6. #6
    Mikael Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    "Mikael" <mjs@nospam.fi> wrote:

    >Why is this newsgroup always making me depressed..?


    This newsgroup appears to become more and more similar to the religious newsgroups
    out there on Usenet. When are we going to see the fist religious war in computer
    industry…?


  7. #7
    David A. Rothgery Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    Mikael <mjs@nospam.fi> wrote:
    >
    > "Mikael" <mjs@nospam.fi> wrote:
    >
    > >Why is this newsgroup always making me depressed..?

    >
    > This newsgroup appears to become more and more similar to the
    > religious newsgroups out there on Usenet.


    > When are we going to see the fist religious war in computer
    > industry…?


    I don't think .NET-ers v. .NOT-ers here is ever going to reach level of
    vi v. Emacs, let alone Windows v. Linux, Windows v. Mac, or Java v.
    everything else.

    --
    Dave Rothgery
    Picking nits since 1976
    drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
    http://drothgery.editthispage.com

  8. #8
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote

    > Zane, and perhaps others as well, will no doubt be happy to know that I have
    > decided that it was a mistake to drop back in here after my earlier decision

    </...>
    > Zane, a
    > NET proponent and fellow Section Leader/Moderator, was worth even a mild
    > admonition. That confirms to me that honest and rational discussion not only
    > is not encouraged, but is impossible here.

    </...>
    > I won't be dropping back in again.


    Add in several more posts that are meant only to deliver an insult, and it starts to
    sound a lot like what I was telling myself about the OR several years ago...

    The general rule is you only should be quoting the message parts relevent to the point
    you plan to add, the trouble is that such a rule lends itself to out of context quotes.
    That isn't strictly a problem of this NG, but of all groups operating with that same rule.

    You might get worked up over being taking out of context, as I know I don't like it
    much either, but you wouldn't be leaving that problem here, if you go. Instead, you will
    have let Zane drive your own opinions away from the many that gather/lurk in this group.

    This _is_ the group to discuss the good or the bad, about VB.NET, is it not? So if thats
    what you want to discuss, feel free to come on back!

    </LFS>





  9. #9
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    In article <3bae2b90@news.devx.com>,
    "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> writes:

    [...]

    > The general rule is you only should be quoting the message parts
    > relevent to the point you plan to add, the trouble is that such a
    > rule lends itself to out of context quotes.


    Another part of the general rule is that you should explicitly indicate
    when you are deleting leading or middle portions of a post (deleting
    to the end from some point is generally taken as a given). But some
    people here don't appear to need the excuse of the general rule - they
    quote out of context as a deliberate tactic.

    [...]

    > You might get worked up over being taking out of context,


    .... especially when the act appears habitual and deliberate ...

    > as I know I don't like it much either, but you wouldn't be leaving
    > that problem here, if you go.


    But he is leaving behind a few of those who make it a deliberate
    tactic.

    [...]

    > This _is_ the group to discuss the good or the bad, about VB.NET, is
    > it not?


    Apparently not. Instead, it is the group to discuss the subjective
    and/or speculative "benefits" of .NET as a whole (independent of the
    other issues it is a "central" part of according to Micro$oft), and to
    misquote, abuse, and threaten physical assault against any who address
    any of the "bad". Indeed, few of the proponents' messages even mention
    VB (except in the header).




    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  10. #10
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    This is supposed to be a "blatant example of intellectual dishonesty"? I don't
    see anything wrong with Zane's post, as you have described it. If this is
    the best case you can make...

    /Pat


    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote:
    >
    >Zane Thomas has demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty in quoting me only
    >partially and then implying that I was lying by his concealing the very

    part
    >of my quote that answered the question he used to imply that I was lying.
    >If he is this intellectually dishonest just to try to smear someone with
    >whom he disagrees, how can even those who agree with him that VB.NET is

    good
    >trust what he has to say about VB.NET or anything else?
    >
    >Here is what I wrote, the entire paragraph from which he quoted:
    >
    > > I also do not see sufficient benefits
    > > to using VB.NET for those applications
    > > that would warrant investing that time and
    > > energy in learning it. I could do them in
    > > Fujitsu COBOL, or Delphi, or other languages,
    > > too, but there wouldn't be any benefit, or
    > > insufficient benefit, to warrant my learning
    > > those. I can't speak to the effort involved,
    > > though some have contended that it's more
    > > efficient to do such apps in Delphi (But,
    > > given that I have never been fond of Pascal,
    > > Delphi has never been something I was
    > > interested in pursuing.).

    >
    >Here’s how Zane quoted and responded:
    >
    > > > I also do not see sufficient benefits to
    > > > using VB.NET ...

    >
    > > That might be because you haven't actually
    > > tried writing real code on vb.net, or the
    > > .net platform in general. Is that true Larry?
    > > Go ahead, tell the truth.

    >
    >Zane, and perhaps others as well, will no doubt be happy to know that I

    have
    >decided that it was a mistake to drop back in here after my earlier decision
    >that it was useless to attempt rational discussion with overenthusiastic
    >supporters of .NET. That was as a result of Zane equating an abacus with
    >an electronic computer when it suited his purposes in discussion, and after
    >Kunle contending that the difference between a teletype and a supercomputer
    >was only a matter of degree.
    >
    >Adding to that this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty and that he
    >whines when anyone not a proponent of .NET answers inflammatory language
    >and name-calling in kind. As of this posting, no Section Leader nor Moderator
    >has considered that blatant example of intellectual dishonesty by Zane,

    a
    >.NET proponent and fellow Section Leader/Moderator, was worth even a mild
    >admonition. That confirms to me that honest and rational discussion not

    only
    >is not encouraged, but is impossible here.
    >
    >I won’t be dropping back in again.
    >
    >
    >



  11. #11
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    I've been using .NET since it was handed out at PDC last year in Orlando. I
    can say without hesitation that the benefits to myself and the group I work
    in are neither subjective or speculative, they are very real. As the saying
    goes, your mileage may differ, but unless it is given a real test (not
    'Hello World') you will not be qualified to discuss those benefits. I, for
    one, don't have any problem with discussing what someone may percieve as
    being 'bad' about the framework. Look back in this ng and you will see some
    of the discussions that I had with several members regarding DF and the
    rollback changes of Beta 2. As I told MM in a previous post, reading a book
    and glancing at the docs does not qualify you to discuss some of the
    technical aspects of .NET, and yes it does grate on myself and others when
    someone starts to tell me what a POS .NET is when they haven't even
    installed it.

    > Apparently not. Instead, it is the group to discuss the subjective
    > and/or speculative "benefits" of .NET as a whole (independent of the
    > other issues it is a "central" part of according to Micro$oft), and to
    > misquote, abuse, and threaten physical assault against any who address
    > any of the "bad". Indeed, few of the proponents' messages even mention
    > VB (except in the header).
    >





  12. #12
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    I've pointed out that anti-.NET is a religion many times in this newsgroup,
    so I just wanted to say I couldn't agree more....

    /Pat

    >This newsgroup appears to become more and more similar to the religious

    newsgroups
    >out there on Usenet. When are we going to see the fist religious war in

    computer
    >industry…?



  13. #13
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    On 22 Sep 2001 17:35:06 -0700, "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org>
    wrote:

    >Zane Thomas has demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty


    That's pretty funny coming from someone (you) who only recently wrote to
    Phil: "Thus, I would most certainly appreciate your efforts to control
    both their uninformed rants and inflammatory language."



    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  14. #14
    Gary Nelson Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

    Patrick,

    >
    > I've pointed out that anti-.NET is a religion many times in this

    newsgroup,
    > so I just wanted to say I couldn't agree more....


    Does that mean that you also consider pro-.Net to be a religion also?

    Gary


    >
    > >This newsgroup appears to become more and more similar to the religious

    > newsgroups
    > >out there on Usenet. When are we going to see the fist religious war in

    > computer
    > >industry.?

    >




  15. #15
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes


    No, I don't consider evolution to be a religion either.

    /Pat

    "Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote:
    >Patrick,
    >
    >>
    >> I've pointed out that anti-.NET is a religion many times in this

    >newsgroup,
    >> so I just wanted to say I couldn't agree more....

    >
    >Does that mean that you also consider pro-.Net to be a religion also?
    >
    >Gary



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center