Richard Heathfield's lie

[spinoza1111]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:48:50 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
[ snip ]
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
Julienne, blm, and Malcolm, I shall not participate in these newsgroup
until you find it in yourselves to complain to Heathfield and Seebach
(I think all three have declined to do so.)
Indeed they have, and part of the problem are people who don't want to

("Part of the problem are"?  Yeah well.)

The grammar is correct although hypercorrect, since verbs of being in
formal written grammar, being logically symmetrical (a==b) require
agreement with the subject's plural-singular number even if the
subject is on the left.

"Part of the problem are people" is logically equivalent to "People
are part of the problem". But if the valid transformation is applied
to "Part of the problem is people", which sounds correct although less
literate to me, you get "People is part of the problem", which is
garbage.

Furthermore, UK English not only allows, it mandates the plural for
many associations of men and people which are not limited liability
corporations: the BBC consistently says "Manchester United win" and
"the Labour party require" where Americans, were they to talk about
either collection of lads and lasses, would say "Manchester United
wins" and "the Labour Party requires."

Americans, as an interesting sidelight, almost consistently make the
name of their sports teams plurals as in Chicago Cubs, Bulls and Da
Bears to sidestep this problem. I believe the American practice of "e
pluribus unum" started when Republican newspaper editors required
former Rebs working as low level reporters to use singular number when
referring to the United States in order to show the Rebs that they'd
been beaten in The War of Southern Rebellion. This confused early
baseball players who probably decided that they were plural and named
their team "The Gashouse Gorillas" or Plug Uglies to confirm this.

Therefore, if the plural entity "people" is a subset of the entity
"part", the cardinality of "part" must be greater than that of people,
and the use of "is" or "are" confirms this, and my usage is correct.

I admit that when people follows part it looks unexpected for the same
reason you're supposed to say "it is I" like a dork when you knock on
your girlfriend's door at 3:00 AM and she squeaks, who is it. Careful
writers simply invert the "subject" and "object" where in formal
grammar the noun or noun phrase is actually a subject.

"Don't compete with me. I have more experience, and I choose the
weapons." - Dijkstra

Yes, we must be "appropriate". What puzzles me, however, is how people
in corporations and here can appeal to a norm which is based not only
on shared values but of knowledge, almost invisible here and
deliberately hidden in most corporations, about other people's
motivations and real feelings.

Basically, your notion of appropriateness is fucked up. This is
because as in the corporation it allows minatory language as long as
the language uses the right shibboleths and appeals to clerical
conventions easily understood, but bans self-defense.

You know, I knew when I wrote the post to which you're replying
that "appropriate" was not exactly the right word to express
my intended meaning [*], but I couldn't think of a better one,
and I still can't.  

[*] Because it has associations with -- notions that I also seem
unable to put a name to.

I can't really make sense of your reply, but there may be
a connection between your intended meaning and these, um,
inappropriate associations.

Going back to the main point of discussion, though:  

You appear to be saying that I and two other posters do not
complain about the behavior of Richard Heathfield and Peter
Seebach because we do not want to "soil [our] hands by defending
[our] fellow human beings".  I can only speak for myself, but
that does not strike me as an accurate description of my reasons
for not complaining.

Stating something, even in dulcet tones, is not an argument. So what
are your reasons?

I'd say they constitute "enabling" in which people try to be formally
but not substantively fair.

 

[blmblm]

On Mar 28, 1:50 am, (e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> wrote:

Perhaps the problem is not that we're not willing to defend our fellow
human beings but that we don't feel that this is a case in which such
defense is appropriate. (I can't speak for either of the other two, but
that's the case for me.)

Yes, we must be "appropriate". What puzzles me, however, is how people
in corporations and here can appeal to a norm which is based not only
on shared values but of knowledge, almost invisible here and
deliberately hidden in most corporations, about other people's
motivations and real feelings.

Basically, your notion of appropriateness is fucked up. This is
because as in the corporation it allows minatory language as long as
the language uses the right shibboleths and appeals to clerical
conventions easily understood, but bans self-defense.

You know, I knew when I wrote the post to which you're replying
that "appropriate" was not exactly the right word to express
my intended meaning [*], but I couldn't think of a better one,
and I still can't.

Perhaps you meant to say "justified".

I considered and rejected "warranted" -- which I think is about
the same thing, in context.

Are you trying to say that
defense of spinoza1111 in this is not justified,

I'm not sure I have an opinion on that one way or another, and
if I did I might hesitate to express it here.

or that any
involvement in the conflict is {uninteresting|pointless|
counterproductive},

I think that's closer to what I meant -- my thinking is that
little good, and probably at least some bad, would be likely
to result from public involvement in a conflict of this sort,
especially in a technical newsgroup.

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

Going back to the main point of discussion, though:

You appear to be saying that I and two other posters do not
complain about the behavior of Richard Heathfield and Peter
Seebach because we do not want to "soil [our] hands by defending
[our] fellow human beings". I can only speak for myself, but
that does not strike me as an accurate description of my reasons
for not complaining.

Stating something, even in dulcet tones, is not an argument.

It's not meant as one. ("Dulcet" -- feh. Well, whatever.)

So what are your reasons?

I decline to state them here, for various reasons that seem good
to me, among them a fair amount of uncertainty in my own mind
about who if anyone is in the right.

I'd say they constitute "enabling" in which people try to be formally
but not substantively fair.

You've made this point before, yes, and I find it -- eh, "not
unpersuasive" [*], maybe, but also not especially compelling.

[*] With apologies to George Orwell. Yes, I read that essay too.

 

[Seebs]

You've made this point before, yes, and I find it -- eh, "not
unpersuasive" [*], maybe, but also not especially compelling.

I think the issue is that "substantively fair" is often a set of
mutually-exclusive requirements, sorta like the Arrow Voting Paradox.

So the best you can do is try to be reasonably fair, or find compromises
that work well.

[*] With apologies to George Orwell. Yes, I read that essay too.

Hee.

-s

 

[blmblm]

NOTE: Follow-ups set (I hope!) to alt.usage.english.

[ snip ]

The grammar is correct although hypercorrect, since verbs of being in
formal written grammar, being logically symmetrical (a==b) require
agreement with the subject's plural-singular number even if the
subject is on the left.

I find this argument completely unpersuasive, but I have little formal
training in such matters. It occurs to me that it would be quite
interesting to hear with the folks in alt.usage.english would make of
it, however, so I'm going to crosspost *and set follow-ups*. (I hope
the latter will keep subsequent discussion out of comp.lang.c.)

"Part of the problem are people" is logically equivalent to "People
are part of the problem". But if the valid transformation is applied
to "Part of the problem is people", which sounds correct although less
literate to me, you get "People is part of the problem", which is
garbage.

Furthermore, UK English not only allows, it mandates the plural for
many associations of men and people which are not limited liability
corporations: the BBC consistently says "Manchester United win" and
"the Labour party require" where Americans, were they to talk about
either collection of lads and lasses, would say "Manchester United
wins" and "the Labour Party requires."

Americans, as an interesting sidelight, almost consistently make the
name of their sports teams plurals as in Chicago Cubs, Bulls and Da
Bears to sidestep this problem. I believe the American practice of "e
pluribus unum" started when Republican newspaper editors required
former Rebs working as low level reporters to use singular number when
referring to the United States in order to show the Rebs that they'd
been beaten in The War of Southern Rebellion. This confused early
baseball players who probably decided that they were plural and named
their team "The Gashouse Gorillas" or Plug Uglies to confirm this.

Therefore, if the plural entity "people" is a subset of the entity
"part", the cardinality of "part" must be greater than that of people,
and the use of "is" or "are" confirms this, and my usage is correct.

I admit that when people follows part it looks unexpected for the same
reason you're supposed to say "it is I" like a dork when you knock on
your girlfriend's door at 3:00 AM and she squeaks, who is it. Careful
writers simply invert the "subject" and "object" where in formal
grammar the noun or noun phrase is actually a subject.

"Don't compete with me. I have more experience, and I choose the
weapons." - Dijkstra

[ snip ]

 

[spinoza1111]

[ snip ]

Going back to the main point of discussion, though:  
You appear to be saying that I and two other posters do not
complain about the behavior of Richard Heathfield and Peter
Seebach because we do not want to "soil [our] hands by defending
[our] fellow human beings".  I can only speak for myself, but
that does not strike me as an accurate description of my reasons
for not complaining.

Stating something, even in dulcet tones, is not an argument.

It's not meant as one.  ("Dulcet" -- feh.  Well, whatever.)

Like some female in Nazi Germany, you say "feh" and shrug while
enabling the blood and glass. You can't stand it, sweetheart, because
you're used to being the most verbally adept person in a technical
environment in which verbal expression is kept deliberately at a low
level, lest people recover the ability to speak truth to power.
Therefore, you enforce a sumptuary law on people who also know
programming: it must never be admitted that they can also write better
than you. I am very familiar with this syndrome.

I decline to state them here, for various reasons that seem good
to me, among them a fair amount of uncertainty in my own mind
about who if anyone is in the right.

Good for you, seriously.

I'd say they constitute "enabling" in which people try to be formally
but not substantively fair.

You've made this point before, yes, and I find it -- eh, "not
unpersuasive" [*], maybe, but also not especially compelling.

That's because I can't in person work that old black magic on you.
Snerk.

[*] With apologies to George Orwell.  Yes, I read that essay too.

Oh yes, we all are exposed, aren't we. I'd hazard that the lesson runs
like this:

"This is Shakespeare. You're no Shakespeare. This is Orwell, safely
dead, so get it in your head, we want lip service. Focus, and
remember him strictly as the writer of simple, as opposed to clear,
English. Now we shall learn how to be clear and false so we are
employable."

 

[blmblm]

On Mar 28, 1:50 am, (e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> wrote:

[ snip ]

Going back to the main point of discussion, though:

You appear to be saying that I and two other posters do not
complain about the behavior of Richard Heathfield and Peter
Seebach because we do not want to "soil [our] hands by defending
[our] fellow human beings". I can only speak for myself, but
that does not strike me as an accurate description of my reasons
for not complaining.

Stating something, even in dulcet tones, is not an argument.

It's not meant as one. ("Dulcet" -- feh. Well, whatever.)

Like some female in Nazi Germany, you say "feh" and shrug while
enabling the blood and glass. You can't stand it, sweetheart, because
you're used to being the most verbally adept person in a technical
environment in which verbal expression is kept deliberately at a low
level, lest people recover the ability to speak truth to power.
Therefore, you enforce a sumptuary law on people who also know
programming: it must never be admitted that they can also write better
than you. I am very familiar with this syndrome.

I can believe that last sentence.

However, I believe you have misdiagnosed me. I don't delude
myself that getting most of the mechanics of written expression
right (spelling, grammar, etc.) makes me a good writer. Further,
I have little flair for verbal aggression, as should be apparent
from most of my posts here.

[ snip ]

You've made this point before, yes, and I find it -- eh, "not
unpersuasive" [*], maybe, but also not especially compelling.

[ snip ]

[*] With apologies to George Orwell. Yes, I read that essay too.

Oh yes, we all are exposed, aren't we. I'd hazard that the lesson runs
like this:

"This is Shakespeare. You're no Shakespeare. This is Orwell, safely
dead, so get it in your head, we want lip service. Focus, and
remember him strictly as the writer of simple, as opposed to clear,
English. Now we shall learn how to be clear and false so we are
employable."

I have no idea which "lesson" you have in mind here, but my point,
insofar as I had a point, was something along the lines of an
attempt at an inside joke -- yes, I'm breaking one of Orwell's
rules, but not because I've never read them. (For the record,
I think he makes some good points, but I was most impressed with
the essay the first time I read it, not so much on later readings.)

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Another empty legal threat:

How about one sweet hell of a lawsuit in civil libel for a malicious
attack on a private person containing falsehood?

Pretty hilarious, since 1) Nilges has promised lawsuits hundreds of
times and never carried through, 2) Nilges fills his posts with
clearly libelous statements against any and all comers all day, every
day, and 3), since presumably he is referring to reviews of Herb
Schildt's books, he has no, even notional, right to bring suit.

One feels tempted to notify Schildt of what this lunatic is doing in
his name. That might provoke a lawsuit, though not the kind Nilges
fantasises about.

 

[Seebs]

Another empty legal threat:
*sigh*

That would indeed be interesting. Indeed, hilarious.

I've had my lawyer review some of the posts Nilges has made
recently (not paying him for this; I sucked him in by telling him
there was something really funny on the internet), and he has
assured me that it would be a great deal of fun to have some
kind of suit involving Nilges. I am inclined to agree; this
sounds like it would lead to epically funny transcripts.

However, I don't see the lawsuit threat as a *new* thing, since
he's been making them for some time. Also, I think he promised
Richard Heathfield the first dance.

-s