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=2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fe9fa,98fc5666cffb859a,start X-Google-Attributes: gidfe9fa,public From: Ethics Gradient Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325078470 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 Reply-To: Ethics Gradient X-NNTP-Posting-Host: variance.demon.co.uk [194.222.33.141] Organization: Micro Fisch and Clipper Chips please.... Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>, docdwarf@clark.net writes >In article <6bti3r$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. >> >> This thread has just been put into alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk where Wee Saul, the Commander in Chief of the English language can reside. -- Ethics Gradient, Contact GSV, Range Class mhm 14x6, Cap'n's .-Winch, wsd #11, sgm #soon Thane Software email: ethics@bigfoot.com http://www.variance.demon.co.uk Usenet: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk "It's full of people" - Duncan's first dubious statment regarding the Usenet.