Speaking of strings...

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

In article <3dae700e$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
"Ed Courtenay" <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk>
writes:

> "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:3DADBCC7.8BFCA20E@netzero.net...

> > In article <3dad1d6d@tnews.web.devx.com>,
> > "Ed Courtenay" <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk>
> > writes:

> > > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
> > > message news:3DAC3F63.473FDCE8@netzero.net...

> > > > 2) It is closer to the way people normally think, and is
> > > > therefore more intuitive.

> > > I disagree. I find OO based design much more natural than plain
> > > Modular development.

> > So you have claimed. However, the Cognitive researchers, from
> > Piaget to Gazzaniga, paint a different picture. And since your
> > "observation" is neither systematic nor objective, I will pay
> > more attention to their claims than to yours.

> > Contrary to the misplaced claims of some early OO advocates,
> > people clearly think of "things" and "actions" differently and
> > separately. MRI studies and the like have even shown that they
> > use different parts of the brain to do so.

> Excuse me, but you made the point that "[Modular development] is
> closer to the way people normally think", which I rebutted.

No you didn't. You made a counter claim, citing no more data or
authority than your own subjective impression of your own experiences
under a very limited range of conditions.

> Contrary to what you might think, I *am* a person, and OO is closer
> to the way *I* think,

Or rather the way that you *believe* you think under limited
circumstances.

> and *I* find OO design more natural.

Which says absolutely nothing about the way you NORMALLY think. It
only addresses your personal comfort level performing a specific task
in a particular manner.

> Therefore, from my objective viewpoint,

No, you are explicitly describing a SUBjective observation. It is not
objective in any way, shape, or form.

> I find OO development infinately superior to MP.

So, from your subjective viewpoint, you are more comfortable doing one
(rather atypical) task in a way you categorize as OO. That's fine, but
it says nothing about the way you normally think - much less the way
people in general think.

--

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

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

In article <Xns92B0C1A4C654runebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

> "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
> news:3DB6B505.865D6312@netzero.net:

[...]

> >> So ignorance and illiteracy are close enough to be
> >> interchangeable?

> > Illiteracy is a subset of ignorance, so pretended ignorance is a
> > more general form of the same tactic as pretended illiteracy. As
> > a rhetorical tactic, they are pretty much the same thing - a way
> > to claim the right to ignore facts which are inconvenient to your
> > position.

> I'm not sure I agree on the initial definition there. Just because
> you're (meaning the general you, not the individual) ignorant
> doesn't mean you can't read or write.

Which is a restatement of the initial definition: Illiteracy is a
SUBset of ignorance.

> And neither does a lack in the ability to read or write indicate a
> general lack in knowledge,

Which is irrelevant to the fact that illiteracy is explicitly an
ignorance of some or all of those factors (reading, writing,
comprehension, etc.) which constitute basic literacy. Thus it is
unarguably a subset of ignorance in and of itself. OTHER
manifestations of ignorance are entirely irrelevant to that fact.

> even though it often follows, particularly academically generated
> knowledge.

An entirely separate issue.

[...]

> >> Failure to recognize travesty of major cultural manifestation

> > Of WHAT "culture"? And what is your basis for claiming that your
> > choice of explicitly religious imagery is linked to a "major
> > cultural manifestation" in that culture?

> I take it you're not familiar with late 80's (I think) Saturday
> Night Live. In which Dana Carvey regularly played the character of
> "The Church Lady", a bigot religous spinster with a habit of
> referring to Satan with thise exact words.

Rune, you ignorant slut, SNL has run from 1975 through the present,
and the only part of the "Church Lady" bit that made it into the
culture was the phrase "Isn't that special." Without the transvestite
trappings and nasal tonality of Carvey's delivery, your paraphrase is
indistinguishable from the very unfunny lunatic ravings of Falwell et
al, from which he drew much of his inspiration. And since those rants
are more current, there is no rational basis for expecting anyone to
guess that you were referring to the less known part of a specific
lampoon thereof.

> Not manifesting recognition of that is either tactical or factual
> ignorance, by your own definintion.

Not recognizing the factors which differentiate your intended
reference from their non comedic antecedents would seem to indicate
that the shoe is on the other foot. You took no steps to differentiate
your paraphrase from the high profile screed that Carvey was
addressing.

--

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

[Rune Bivrin]

"W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
news:3DB9BCA2.1073FE5D@netzero.net:

>> > Illiteracy is a subset of ignorance, so pretended ignorance is a
>> > more general form of the same tactic as pretended illiteracy. As
>> > a rhetorical tactic, they are pretty much the same thing - a way
>> > to claim the right to ignore facts which are inconvenient to your
>> > position.
>
>> I'm not sure I agree on the initial definition there. Just because
>> you're (meaning the general you, not the individual) ignorant
>> doesn't mean you can't read or write.
>
> Which is a restatement of the initial definition: Illiteracy is a
> SUBset of ignorance.
>
>> And neither does a lack in the ability to read or write indicate a
>> general lack in knowledge,
>
> Which is irrelevant to the fact that illiteracy is explicitly an
> ignorance of some or all of those factors (reading, writing,
> comprehension, etc.) which constitute basic literacy. Thus it is
> unarguably a subset of ignorance in and of itself. OTHER
> manifestations of ignorance are entirely irrelevant to that fact.

You are so predictable, it hurts.

> Rune, you ignorant slut,

Taking the high road, I see. Isn't that special?

> SNL has run from 1975 through the present,
> and the only part of the "Church Lady" bit that made it into the
> culture was the phrase "Isn't that special." Without the transvestite
> trappings and nasal tonality of Carvey's delivery, your paraphrase is
> indistinguishable from the very unfunny lunatic ravings of Falwell et
> al, from which he drew much of his inspiration. And since those rants
> are more current, there is no rational basis for expecting anyone to
> guess that you were referring to the less known part of a specific
> lampoon thereof.

Well, at least one other contributor to this news group guessed it, so my
rational basis stands untainted by your rather telling preference to
associate me with the Falwells of this world.

Moreover, every nanosecond of the Church Lady made it into the culture.
Whether it made it into popular culture is a different issue altogether.
In which case we need to establish context. My - admittedly unscientific
- research shows a large proportion of developers from the angloamerican
society (of which I am not an integral part - I follow the observer
pattern) is quite familiar with rather obscure SNL episodes. These make
up a sizable chunk of the participants here, I think.

However, I admit to being biased since my feelings toward zealots -
particularly of the religious variety - are fairly neagtive.

> Not recognizing the factors which differentiate your intended
> reference from their non comedic antecedents would seem to indicate
> that the shoe is on the other foot. You took no steps to differentiate
> your paraphrase from the high profile screed that Carvey was
> addressing.
>

Just expecting too much, rather. Such is the fate of those who give
others the benefit of the doubt. We're more often disappointed.


--
Rune Bivrin
- OOP since 1989
- SQL Server since 1990
- VB since 1991

[Phil Weber]

>> Rune, you ignorant slut,
> Taking the high road, I see. Isn't that special?

Rune: Uh, /now/ who's not recognizing SNL references? ;-)
--
Phil Weber

[Rune Bivrin]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in news:3db9ccfe$1
@tnews.web.devx.com:

> >> Rune, you ignorant slut,
> > Taking the high road, I see. Isn't that special?
>
> Rune: Uh, /now/ who's not recognizing SNL references? ;-)

Feeding off of my memory of reruns on Swedish cable 10 years ago, I don't
feel to bad about that. Educate me!

--
Rune Bivrin
- OOP since 1989
- SQL Server since 1990
- VB since 1991

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

In article <Xns92B3EB0AA0EDrunebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

> "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in news:3db9ccfe$1
> @tnews.web.devx.com:

> > >> Rune, you ignorant slut,
> > > Taking the high road, I see. Isn't that special?

> > Rune: Uh, /now/ who's not recognizing SNL references? ;-)

> Feeding off of my memory of reruns on Swedish cable 10 years ago,
> I don't feel to bad about that. Educate me!

One of the first - and longest running (5 seasons, plus later
references)- ongoing SNL bits to make it into the popular culture
involved Jane Curtin as an anchorwoman. After the inevitable gaffe,
her co anchor would respond with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" and then
go on to correct the gaffe.

It is the second most famous SNL line - first, if you discount the
opening of the show.

--

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

[Blob]

And now Garrett Morris will present this message for the hearing, I mean vocabulary
impaired.

>Which is a restatement of the initial definition: Illiteracy is a
>SUBset of ignorance.
He said it once, he'll say it again, Illiteracy is part of being ignorant.


>Which is irrelevant to the fact that illiteracy is explicitly an
>ignorance of some or all of those factors (reading, writing,
>comprehension, etc.) which constitute basic literacy.
****, if you can't read, write or comprehend, you be illiterate.

>Thus it is
>unarguably a subset of ignorance in and of itself. OTHER
>manifestations of ignorance are entirely irrelevant to that fact.
Huh?

>An entirely separate issue.
An entirely separate issue.

>Rune, you ignorant slut, SNL has run from 1975 through the present,
>and the only part of the "Church Lady" bit that made it into the
>culture was the phrase "Isn't that special."
OK. Not much to change here.

>Without the transvestite
>trappings and nasal tonality of Carvey's delivery, your paraphrase is
>indistinguishable from the very unfunny lunatic ravings of Falwell et
>al, from which he drew much of his inspiration.

Something about Dana Carvey wore womens clothes and Jerry Falwell was his
inspiration. Hmm, didn't know Falwell wore womens clothes.

And since those rants
>are more current, there is no rational basis for expecting anyone to
>guess that you were referring to the less known part of a specific
>lampoon thereof.
Something about National Lampoon, but ****, I can't figure it out.


>Not recognizing the factors which differentiate your intended
>reference from their non comedic antecedents would seem to indicate
>that the shoe is on the other foot. You took no steps to differentiate
>your paraphrase from the high profile screed that Carvey was
>addressing.

Screw this.

>*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
>* 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 *
>*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

Something about becoming a transexual.