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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-30 07:48:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 30 Apr 2003 07:48:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0304300648.35b12e0b@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304240953.221ac70f@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250448.5107afef@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304252116.621a4bf4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304260649.366530c5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304280451.34afff75@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051714105 6373 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2003 14:48:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2003 14:48:25 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62934 comp.object:62362 comp.lang.ada:36767 misc.misc:13820 Date: 2003-04-30T14:48:25+00:00 List-Id: xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote in message news:... > Please attempt to use sane methods of argumentation; this kind is > tedious, as you continue to trim away material which counters the > points you then insist on making incorrectly again and again. I don't read tons of quoted material and I assume others don't either -- your insistence that every triviality be addressed, would make the thread extremely boring. It is very much like the people who insist that no off topic items ever be discussed. So rather than refrain from trimming material, I would prefer to trim it down to - in good faith - what I see is your objection. You are saying that you have proved wrong the paragraph: Many people who use computers today, simply wouldn't have been able to, 20 years ago. by claiming vi was written for secretaries. This makes little sense to me, and I even fail to see any serious argument here. To remind you of the actualities of history, I even mentioned the Wang word processors in case you had forgotten. But it seems you didn't forget, you simply observed it very differently. Today, computers are used in lots of places and by lots of people (not just handicapped access) that simply were not possible twenty years ago. Even if you are living in a cardboard box, if you have to go grocery shopping, probably your cashier is doing the checkout using a Windows based application. So what I see is that I stated a fact from observation, and you are disputing the fact. At this point, there is no logic involved. The best I could have done was little memory joggers, not present any more logic. If you still insist that no more people are using computers today, there just isn't much more to be said about it.