ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win

[Tim Rentsch]

EXACTLY.

Please don't misunderstand my meaning. I'm not saying anything
about whether someone is or is not pompous, only about what might
explain or might not explain why someone would be accused of
being pompous.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
about it?

Read through some of Keith Thomson's posting history here, and you'll be
able to work out for yourself what it entails. [snip elaboration]

I think you may have misunderstood what question I'm trying to
answer. I'm not trying to find out what I think about what it
means to be autistic; I'm trying to find out what other people
think about what it means to be autistic. I already know what
I think it means.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Not very good ones. There's some decent material in full-length books.

My general preference is to recommend the Elizabeth Moon fiction book
"The Speed of Dark". Read that, and then imagine that the main character
seems *perfectly reasonable* to me. It was really relaxing reading a book
where the character observed events rather than elaborate stories about
the events in which motives were invented from whole cloth.

Thank you, I appreciate the recommendation.

The biggest underlying thing, I think: In many cultures, there are
many deferential status cues but very few explicit cues for high
status; rather, high status is inferred when you do not emit
deferential cues. People whose brains naturally pick up status cues
are likely to perceive someone who omits them as "arrogant" or "pompous",
but it's extremely hard to emit the right deferential cues in the right
ways so as not to come across as condescending.

I can usually do it, but then, I spent >5 years doing technical support,
and developed a lot of specialized skills from it.

Oh boy, a whole new interpersonal skill to try to ramp up on.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
> It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
> it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
> that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
> confused in this instance.

Apparently you have not read the article Richard replied to. In it Jacob
stated that he made it C90 conforming at request, which triggered Richard's
follow-up.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Apparently you have not read the article Richard replied to. In it Jacob
stated that he made it C90 conforming at request, which triggered Richard's
follow-up.

I responded to the posting cited (quoted in its entirety) as it
was written. I didn't know (and still don't) whether there was
some previous article in which Jacob said or implied he took an
earlier statement as a request -- I don't remember reading such
an article, and it wasn't quoted or cited in the article I was
responding to. Under those circumstances, I thought the comments
I was responding to showed a leap of logic similar to the leap of
logic that Jacob was being accused of, and moreover that other
readers might very well reach the same conclusion. That seems
worth pointing out, which is why I responded.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

....
> Under those circumstances, I thought the comments
> I was responding to showed a leap of logic similar to the leap of
> logic that Jacob was being accused of, and moreover that other
> readers might very well reach the same conclusion. That seems
> worth pointing out, which is why I responded.

Recap:

Richard: "... and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously."

Jacob in reply:
"Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90."

So, if Jacob did not made an error when assuming that a statement about
non-conformance is also a request to change, in what way is Jacob's remark
actually in response to Richard's remark?

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Recap:

Richard: "... and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously."

Jacob in reply:
"Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90."

So, if Jacob did not made an error when assuming that a statement about
non-conformance is also a request to change, in what way is Jacob's remark
actually in response to Richard's remark?

Perhaps it isn't; that's really a question that only Jacob can
answer. But certainly it's true that Jacob didn't /say/ he took
RH's comments as a request. Maybe he did take it that way, or
maybe he didn't, but either way taking his statement to say that
he did is reading something into it that isn't there -- which is
basically what Jacob was accused of doing.