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: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,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 X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Ethics Gradient Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325078469 References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bp6rh$sim$4@peachy.apana.org.au> <6bpoea$rd1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Ethics Gradient X-NNTP-Posting-Host: variance.demon.co.uk [194.222.33.141] Organization: Micro Fisch and Clipper Chips please.... Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian writes >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!" 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. And besides, the last thing a person should worry about is the spelling or gramatical constructs used by any given person or Bot as English may ot be the first language of whoever you're flaming, for that is what it is, and it leads to badly concieved, wrongly constructed rambling perambulatory sentences in answer to the original lame. And it's nasty. -- 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.