purge like utility in c

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.

Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

 

[jacob navia]

Well, of course it would... silly Froggie program, knows nothing about
beverages. Come back when it makes tea, as well. No, _real_ tea, not
that dishwater you serve in your country.

Richard

Froggie program?

According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
Majesty the Queen would like to be French. (!!!)

In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can
speak english in the streets...

BUT... Well, yes. They know how to make the tea better

jacob

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Chris Dollin said:



Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

Wrong. ``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

Tak-Shing

 

[Richard Bos]

Froggie program?

Yeah, you're a frog-eater, aren't you?

According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
Majesty the Queen would like to be French. (!!!)

Nowt to do with me, though. I'm not a Limey, I'm a cheese-head.

In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can
speak english in the streets...

Works in Paris as well. Though you guys do have a funny accent. Mind
you, I've heard a Limey speak French, and that was even more hilarious.

BUT... Well, yes. They know how to make the tea better

Better than most of my compatriots, too.

Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Tak-Shing Chan said:

Nope.

``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

Can we talk about C now please?

 

[John McCallum]

Hi,

<ot>

According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
^^^^^^^
In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can

^^^^^^^

Do make up your mind which country you are refering too. These two are not
the same. England is a constituent kingdom in the United Kingom, and
Britain is an Island (and the UK is larger than that, eg Nothern Ireland).

So, you could have the South of France filled with Scots, Welsh and so on
while 100% of those in England would never go there.

Noticable mainly due to the fact that folks in Scotland don't have quite the
same attitudes towards the 'Auld Ally' (France) as our neighbours to the
south. See:

http://www.theauldallianceparis.com/hist_auld.asp

</ot>

John McCallum
Edinburgh

 

[Richard Heathfield]

John McCallum said:

[...] folks in Scotland don't have quite
the same attitudes towards the 'Auld Ally' (France) as our neighbours to
the south.

The English attitude to France is summed up nicely in Shakespeare's "Henry
V", Act V sc. ii, in which King Henry says: "I love France so well that I
will not part with a village of it".

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Tak-Shing Chan said:


I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.

Can we talk about C now please?

I was talking about netiquette, which is always on-topic.

Tak-Shing

 

[Richard Bos]

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.

Look up the _other_ meaning of the word "slur".

Richard

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Look up the _other_ meaning of the word "slur".

I am fully aware of the musical meaning (in fact I wrote to
Richard Heathfield above: ```slurs' does have a different meaning
in a musical context''); however, when ``slur'' is preceded by
``generic'', the musical meaning ceases to apply. Try searching
for +"generic slur" +music on Google. Ask your musical friends
for independent verification(s), preferably, both music theorists
and performers.

Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).

Tak-Shing

 

[Richard Tobin]

Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).

Have you come across the concept named "humour"?

Or can it be possible that you really believed that Richard Heathfield
was suggesting insulting people in rec.music.classical?

Or are you just a troll?

-- Richard

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

Have you come across the concept named "humour"?

[snip]

Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

Tak-Shing

 

[Richard Tobin]

Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

So I was right, you are a troll.

-- Richard

 

[Chris Dollin]

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

(big quote follows)

I am fully aware of the musical meaning (in fact I wrote to
Richard Heathfield above: ```slurs' does have a different meaning
in a musical context''); however, when ``slur'' is preceded by
``generic'', the musical meaning ceases to apply. Try searching
for +"generic slur" +music on Google. Ask your musical friends
for independent verification(s), preferably, both music theorists
and performers.

Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).

Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).

If we're going to obsess over the details of wording, may I point
out that I didn't say "generic slurs": I said "generic slurs like
this", referring to the slur in the earlier post. And I didn't
say they "have no place in any newsgroups": I said that /I/
didn't think they /should/ have a place in this (or any other,
really) newsgroup. Your:

over-states my position.

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

[big quote snipped]

Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).

If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

Tak-Shing

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

So I was right, you are a troll.

If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.

Tak-Shing

 

[Chris Dollin]

[big quote snipped]

Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).

If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

 

[Frederick Gotham]

Chris Dollin posted:

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted. A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc. -- smileys
and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.

When the human mind encounters a sentence which could constitue an ambiguous
parse, it tends not to notice -- it simply takes the first meaning which
comes to mind. This is problematic for the written word, which lacks
intonation, tone of voice, etc., which would otherwise indicate the intended
meaning.

When writing a sentence, if you believe that it is necessary to convey tone
of voice, etc., then it's pertinent to use smileys and the like.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:


I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation.

You're right, Chris. There isn't.

(I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

Yup. Those who understand, understand. If some people can't grok it without
a smiley, that's their problem, not mine (or yours).

 

[Frederick Gotham]

Richard Heathfield posted:

If some people can't grok it without a smiley, that's their problem, not
mine (or yours).

It's the transmitter's responsibility to transmit intelligibly.
It's the receiver's responsibility to interpret intelligibly.

By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right to
complain when people misinterpret you.