Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steven B Mohler <hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net>]

If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a
porgramming newsgroup.  Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar
and linguistics, I do know one thing.  This is not the place for them you have
given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing.  I hope taht you
are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is.  Now I do believe
that you have wasted enough of my time.  Good bye.

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:

> In article <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
> Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >>In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
> >>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >>>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >>>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
> >>>>Frank A. Adrian <frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com> wrote:
> >>>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears
> >than
> >>>the use of the plural "they".
> >>
> >>Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your
> >>ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original
> >>line exactly)
> >>
> >>'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer
> >>is said to be'
> >>
> >>Ever seen such a usage?
> >
> >Of course, but again, to my ears, it does not sound superior.  In fact, the
> >use of the passive "is said to be" is much less pleasing than the active and
> >simpler "they are".  When you suggested a solution, I assumed you were
> >referring to an active generic singular pronoun replacement.  I take your
> >use of passive voice to be a cheat.
>
> So, a new rule, in midstream... very well, remove the passive voice and
> change it to the active, I am flexible:
>
> 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer"
> is'
>
> Simple enough, for most folks.
>
> >
> >>> Even though others have proposed
> >>>alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that
> >holds
> >>>sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage.
> >>
> >>The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently.
> >
> >Absolutely - as a bad example of passive voice where active voice would
> >suffice.
>
> The active has been applied... next?
>
> >
> >>> As I see the
> >>>current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to
> >the
> >>>level of your suposed challenge.
> >>
> >>Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to
> >>'lower yourself'?
> >
> >No, only that responding to your attempts to turn a simple post into a
> >linguistic pissing match lowers myself.
>
> To question your assertions is a contest of urination?
>
> >
> >
> >>> If you find the situation intolerable, I
> >>>apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly
> >>>not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the
> >>>matter.
> >>
> >>By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I
> >>point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you
> >>may respond as you already have.
> >
> >My, my.  The attempt to put to an end what is at this point obviously a
> >linguistically based troll is now a "paucity of intellectual energy".  I
> >deny this as I deny that this thread has any further intellectual value.
> >
> >>>>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian?  Do you say there is *no*
> >>>>acceptable alternative to the above cited  disagreement... or that the
> >>>>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness?
> >>>
> >>>I admit neither.
> >>
> >>You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you
> >>changing this now?
> >
> >I admitted I could not at the moment find such a usage.  I did not admit
> >that one did not exist.
> >
> >>> Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative.  Perhaps there
> >>>is not.  The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not
> >>>ascribe to laziness.
> >>
> >>What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you
> >>were aware and which you neglected?  It was there if you looked;
> >>not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh?
> >
> >As I said, I was not aware at the moment.  You kindly pointed out a usage
> >which, due to its poor style had slipped my mind.  Your uncharitable
> >response to my lapse of memory as laziness says more about your character
> >than mine, I fear.
>
> When you can leave behind such turgid prose as 'braying ass' and 'pissing
> match' perhaps you might be shown more charity; the objection to the
> passive voice has been removed... next?
>
> >
> >>> I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on
> >>>the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with
> >>>respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the
> >>>sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory.  I have no need to search
> >for
> >>>this chimerical solution you prattle on about.
> >>
> >>So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the
> >>brayings og an ass... how lovely.
> >
> >I refer more to a solution for an active voice general singular pronoun.
>
> You have that now.
>
> >And I still believe that such a solution is chimerical (clever of you to try
> >to change the goal in mid-argument, though).
> >
> >>> If you have a problem with
> >>>common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend.
> >>
> >>If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as
> >>well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong,
> >>just admit it and go along with your life.
> >
> >Well, good enough is often good enough.  In important things I do strive for
> >excellence.
>
> So now it is a question of importance?  Whenever was *that* mentioned, but
> for now?
>
> > In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to
> >them.
>
> Especially when you are so readily proven wrong... sounds like a barrel of
> laughs, to me!
>
> > In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end -
>
> Usefulness to whom, pray tell?
>
> >the points of the combatants are clear: You believe that there is such thing
> >as canonical "proper English usage" and you believe that sticking to this
> >usage is worth the use of poor writing style (which you would term "good
> >writing style").
>
> I have never stated any 'beliefs'; please inform us how you have divined
> these 'secrets of my soul'.
>
> > I believe that there is only "common English usage" and
> >that in an ernest attempt to convey information in a palatable and engaging
> >way, this common usage is wholly acceptable, even when it means bending a
> >few supposed "proper English usages".
>
> That's nice... lazy, but nice.
>
> > I believe that linguistic history and
> >most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side.
>
> Any evidence for these beliefs beyond your assertions?
>
> > It is
> >clear from the insulting nature of your posts that you wish only to engage
> >me in your attempts to lengthen this rather unartful linguistic troll.
>
> 'Clarity' is in the mind of the beholder; I merely wish to see how
> gracefully you admit to being in the wrong when it is readily
> demonstrated.
>
> > I
> >refuse to be engaged further.
>
> No engagement needed, just an admission of your error.
>
> > We are no longer amused.
>
> Plural majestatus est... or should I have said 'Plural Majestatus Est,
> Your Highness'?
>
> > Go back under your
> >bridge, Troll...
>
> So, then... from this I am to conclude that anyone who tenaciously proves
> you to be incorrect is a Troll?  How... droll!
>
> DD



--
___________________________ ____           _         ______ |
 \                              \        /   \___-=O`/|O`/__|
  \         Steven B Mohler      \_______\          / | /  (0}
  / hlmohler@lancnews.infi.net   /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
 /                              /         *             \ | |
/______________________________/http://zansiii.millersv.edu/~mohler