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: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: Steven B Mohler Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: <34E51A58.85F99EAB@lancnews.infi.net> X-Deja-AN: 324958023 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net> <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: InfiNet Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: If you do not mind i would just like to remind the both of you that you are in a porgramming newsgroup. Though i do not doubt the importance of correct grammar and linguistics, I do know one thing. This is not the place for them you have given a shitload of posts that all deal with absolutely nothing. I hope taht you are proud for making the internet as near useless as it is. Now I do believe that you have wasted enough of my time. Good bye. docdwarf@clark.net wrote: > In article <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net>, > Frank A. Adrian wrote: > >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>... > >>In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>, > >>Frank A. Adrian wrote: > >>>docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>... > >>>>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, > >>>>Frank A. Adrian 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