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: 103376,54889de51045a215 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-16 19:37:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: += in ada Date: 16 Oct 2003 19:37:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru> <49cbf610.0310101231.2358762a@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0310150616.3503a1c4@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066358234 15671 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2003 02:37:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1044 Date: 2003-10-16T19:37:13-07:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus wrote in message news:... > Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote: > : I think those protestors are unpatriotic idiots. But here's the > : critical point. I don't think they are idiots *because* they are > : unpatriotic; I think they are unpatriotic *because* they are idiots. > > Let me try to paraphrase. > I think those against :+ are unfashionate fools. But here's the > critical point. I don't think they are fools *because* they are > unfashionate; I think they are unfashionate *because* they are fools. You're taking my example way too far. Let me put it this way: I don't think they are wrong *because* they disagree with 98% of programmers; I think they disagree with 98% of programmers *because* they are wrong (on this particular matter). > I have a question. I don't know English so well, and I'm trying > to find the exact references for "*because*". So do you claim any of the > following to be true: > - the non-:+ are fools, therefore they are unfashionate > - the non-:+ are unfashionate, therefore they are fools. > (Thus, being fashionate (or modern) implies being smart?) > - the reason for my thinking that the non-:+ are unfashionate is that > the non-:+ are fools. I never claimed any of those. By the way, the word is "unfashionable", and I never used it. Nor did I ever call *everyone* who doesn't want ":+" fools. > The fashion tells the smart ones from the fools? How is that? Sometimes the minority is right and the majority is wrong, but usually it's the other way around. For example, some people believe the earth is flat, but most believe it is roughly spherical. I think the majority is right in that case. However, I don't think they are right *because* they hold the majority view; I think they hold the majority view *because* they are obviously right. The "burden of proof" falls naturally on the minority. If you think the earth is flat, go ahead and try to prove it. Until you do, I'll stick with the majority.