Zane Thomas' Intellectual Dishonesty -- demonstrated with quotes

[Larry Linson]

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.

[Mark Jerde]

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.

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"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!

[Mark Jerde]

> > 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

[Mikael]

"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

[Mikael]

"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…?

[David A. Rothgery]

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

[Larry Serflaten]

"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>

[W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

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 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Patrick Troughton]

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.
>
>
>

[Jay Glynn]

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).
>

[Patrick Troughton]

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…?

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Gary Nelson]

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.?
>

[Patrick Troughton]

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