C as a Platonic pathology

[Charlton Wilbur]

RH> The UK spelling, btw, is "logorrhoea".

I suspect that Mr Nilges's failure to recognize it has more to do with a
deficiency of vocabulary than to do with any orthographic idiosyncracy.

Charlton

 

[spinoza1111]

That looks libelous to me. Congrats, you've become precisely what you
(claim) to decry.
Let me guess, It's C's fault.
The main "attack" Ive seen from Keith has been to simply disagree with you.
Unless you care to show otherwise?

<snip>




You realize, I hope, that it is now 2009, and that the word does have a
meaning as regards to a specific type of language translator these days.
There are plenty of books available on compilers, interpreters, and language
translators.

Yeah, like mine.

The word doesn't have a fixed meaning as a noun. It has a root meaning
as a verb. To compile is to translate a language to another language.
To interpret is to emulate a real or paper computer.

You basically waste my time and yours in these sterile, Scholastic
debates that originate in what Wittgenstein would call the bewitchment
of your (bounded) intelligence by way of language. There is no such
thing as a compiler.

 

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 21, 9:11 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <[email protected]>
wrote:


Possibly. Still, it's important in law to demonstrate intent in cases
of negligence,

think about it. How can you intend to be negligent?

from Wikipedia

"[negligence] can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable
because it
falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another
individual
from foreseeable risks of harm."

In the words of Lord Blackburn,

"those who go personally or bring property where they know that they
or it
may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by
law
a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such
a
collision."

and the anti-Schildt creeps are charging negligence
without establishing intent. If they cannot prove intent, and because
they act with malice, any global claims they make about Schildt's
competence become criminal libels, made with intent to destroy his
livelihood.

Heathfield's only published one typo if that is what it is.

Fourteen year old boys are fundamentalists, teasing kids who stumble
over words or "get it wrong". Most adults grow out of this and look at
a person holistically, [...yadda yadda ya...]

<snip>

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

RH> spinoza1111 said:

RH> So when you claimed to have written one, were you lying or
RH> merely mistaken?

Is that necessarily an exclusive disjunction?

Charlton

 

[spinoza1111]

jew==spinoza

As I have said, and shall continue to say, this usage of "troll"
doesn't correspond to its definition, since a network "troll" posts
insincerely in hopes of getting a rise from people, whereas I am using
this facility as intended. Arguably, you're trolling.

Furthermore, its use is grammatically isomorphic to "jew" in anti-
semitic writings.

    >> The fundamental mistake you are making is that you are assuming
    >> that Mr Nilges is arguing in order to arrive at the truth. In
    >> fact, he is arguing in order to hear his own voice, which means
    >> that facts and definitions are useful only insofar as they can be
    >> quibbled over at great length.

    troll> No, the definitions being proposed are arrogant, reifying,
    troll> and productive of corporate stupefaction.

Definitions are not arrogant; people are.

This shows a dim grasp on language and an inability to use metaphor.
Next, you'll be saying that it's ok to use racist hate speech for the
same reason.

I suspect you don't actually understand what 'reifying' means, although
you probably picked it up wherever you got 'topoi' from.

And 'productive of corporate stupefaction'?  You're really stringing
words together just to hear yourself type, aren't you?

For a definition of "corporate stupefaction", you might have to look
in a mirror, Reading Rainbow.

    troll> Gee, what's "logorrhea"? That's a mighty big word, son. Does
    troll> it mean by any chance "can write?"

It is a mighty big word, and I regret that it is not in your vocabulary;
its meaning is closer to "can type, but doesn't have a clue about what
to type, and *really* has no clue about when to stop."  You may note the
distinction between typing and writing, of course.

You don't know the meaning of stupefaction, therefore you're no more
qualified to judge my writing than I would be to judge the C code of
an operating system.

 

[luserXtrog]

jew==spinoza

As I have said, and shall continue to say, this usage of "troll"
doesn't correspond to its definition, since a network "troll" posts
insincerely in hopes of getting a rise from people, whereas I am using
this facility as intended. Arguably, you're trolling.

Insincerity is not the sole criterion.

Furthermore, its use is grammatically isomorphic to "jew" in anti-
semitic writings.

Bogus. Its use is grammatically isomorphic to any animate noun.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Furthermore, its use is grammatically isomorphic to "jew" in anti-
semitic writings.

[/QUOTE]

Bogus. Its use is grammatically isomorphic to any animate noun.

A troll pretending that "troll" is like "jew" is obviously trolling.
Please don't feed the troll, though I know it's hard to resist.

-- Richard

 

[spinoza1111]

A troll pretending that "troll" is like "jew" is obviously trolling.
Please don't feed the troll, though I know it's hard to resist.

Read Arendt, read Sartre: "he would talk like that, being a Jew": "he
would talk like that, being a troll". The language of anti-Semitism,
and here about "trolling", is a closed system and unfalsifiable in
Karl Popper's sense, therefore, in Popper's sense, bullshit, off-
topic, abusive, and libel under UK law.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Read Arendt, read Sartre: "he would talk like that, being a Jew": "he
would talk like that, being a troll". The language of anti-Semitism,

Mere grammatical isomorphism does not equality of meaning make.

and here about "trolling", is a closed system and unfalsifiable in
Karl Popper's sense, therefore, in Popper's sense, bullshit,

NO. Not "bullshit"; just /not science/. To the best of my recollection,
Popper was /completely clear/ that his criterion was about whether
something counted as /science/, not whether it was /meaningful/.

off-topic, abusive, and libel under UK law.

Is your "therefore" supposed to extend to these aspects? Because, you
know, it doesn't.

You lost the topicality wars about ten thousand words ago; mere
accusations of trollery are not "abusive", even without evidence;
I can't speak to the case of UK libel law, but will report my
skepticism.

--
"There remains, as the Lord Gulhad indicated, a The Lord Toshin
third possibility." /The Demon Breed/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England