From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Steven B Mohler Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: <34E518AC.90FDDD3C@lancnews.infi.net> X-Deja-AN: 324958021 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: InfiNet Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > Frank A. Adrian wrote: > >The Goobers wrote in message <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>... > >>Richard Kenner wrote: > >>> > >>> The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are. > >>> I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always > >>> better to know more than to know less. > >> > >>BLEARGH! > >> > >>Read this sentence again, please: > >> > >> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.' > >> > >>I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a > >>"programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED > >>it... now, repeat after me: > >> > >>'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.' > >> > >>Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'? 'Antecedants' and 'their' are > >>plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to > >>remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no? > >> > >>In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they' > >>and 'are' am be pluralismers. > >> > >>What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays? > >> > > > >*They* are teaching that in order to be politically correct in this day and > >age, in order to sooth ruffled feathers of those who insist on sex neutral > >language, one must sometimes wrinkle the ears of fuddy-duddy language > >purists with circumlocutions such as the sentence that caused you to go > >"BLEARGH!" > > At times, perhaps, this 'must' be done... in this case I can think of a > readily acceptable substitute. Is an abhorrence of lazy thinking another > symptom of that which you lable 'fuddy-duddiness'? > > > In some cases, other fuddy-duddy language purists' ears wrinkle > >upon hearing the phrase "his/her" or (even more noveau) the sex neutral > >linguistic proposal "te or tis". And, although most fuddy-duddy language > >purists *would* prefer that the whole sex-neutral language issue would go > >away allowing us to revert to good old masculine singular as a generic > >singular term for a person, as with sex the controversy appears to be here > >for quite a while longer. > > > >In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant. > > Mr? Why do you call me 'Mr'? Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr > Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this > instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement. I say, further, that you > can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any > passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is > superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate. > > Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian? Do you say there is *no* > acceptable alternative to the abovecited disagreement... or that the > failure to find one is just a matter of laziness? > > DD > > >-- > >Frank A. Adrian > >First DataBank > >frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W) > >franka@europa.com (H) > >This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer, > >its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent > >company. > > > > > > Laziness is not really a negative thing. May i remind you that it is laziness not necessity that brought around most of the inventions in the world today. A machine that made it possible to do millions of calculations per second is not a neccesity but a time saver for people that prefer there time to be spent doing more important things. You may not think this is lazy but i sure as hell do. Lazy people are always the ones to do the work best the first time around knowing that screwing up is just making more work for yourself in the future so maybe instead of aruging over wether i should call you he or she you could go fix something in this world that people like you have screwed up so much. -- ___________________________ ____ _ ______ | \ \ / \___-=O`/|O`/__| \ Steven B Mohler \_______\ / | / (0} / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-| / / * \ | | /______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler