"Jukka K. Korpela said:
Scripsit dorayme:
Parentheses, not brackets.
Brackets. Your parenthetical remark was in brackets, round
brackets to be more specific. There is no getting away from this.
No amount of babbling by either you or me can change this fact.
It is there for all to see. Not (Parentheses, not brackets) but
rather (Parentheses and brackets). In the last sentence what were
in the brackets were not parentheses - they could well not have
been in brackets. This goes to show that there are more things
that can go into brackets than parenthetical remarks. You have
not taken seriously my interest in all your bracketed content. I
am interested in all of it, not just the parenthetical remarks.
You should be flattered. You never realised how big a fan I was.
I forgive you.
You might be right. Maybe I should have used a comma before "because".
There really is no question of *might* here. It is not even
slightly controversial that someone might not reveal his good
reasons for doing something. A comma, alas, would not have
helped. Had you said:
"The reasons are wrong, because you didn't explain them".
it would have made no difference really. There is something too
deeply wrong. But I do not judge you harshly on this, I believe
you could reformulate. I have gone on here only because, to use
an Australian expression that is not as bad as it sounds, you
have been pissing me off lately. But I do settle if you are
polite.
The point, however, is that a failure to explain the reasons for
something like browser sniffing for CSS is a sure enough symptom of the
reasons being wrong. In this case, the subsequent posts from the OP have
confirmed that this conclusion was correct, as usual.
Is your virus control up-to-date? It seems like your system has a virus
that causes fragments of text to be inserted into your postings quite
randomly, or with rudimentary AI.
I cannot tell you how pleased I am that you should have brought
this to my attention. I have rejected the idea that you are
clueless about certain matters and preferred the virus theory.
Accordingly, I have unearthed other things that this virus has
spread in my writings. Like:
"In the movement loosely known as positivism, the meaning of a
statement was linked to the conditions of its verification. This
idea has a great deal of attraction and would almost certainly
appeal to hard headed technical folk. One particularly attractive
feature for an atheist is that all the statements made by theists
are worse than merely false. They appear to be bullshit. And they
are this because there is no way to verify them. Without knowing
how one would actually verify such statements, one is really
quite clueless about their real meaning.
Unfortunately, things are not quite as crude as this and the
atheist hoping for a quick method of refutation needs to pause
and reflect further. There are many statements that have turned
out to be true that, while not obviously incomprehensible, were
quite unaccompanied by any known means of testing."
I suppose this virus inserted this text from my writings at the
trigger of your statement about reasons being wrong when not
accompanied by explicit expression. Funny how these viruses work.
It is almost as if they see analogies where we don't.