Jonah Thomas wrote:
>> That is one of the reasons I even bother to read messages in
>> comp.lang.forth. Occasionally, someone here comes up with a unique
>> idea or a different perspective. That's the kind of thing that I find
>> valuable.
>
> People might do more of that if you don't argue with them about their
> foibles. The time they spend arguing that they're right and you're wrong
> (when they're wrong or it's a subjective thing anyway) is time they
> aren't doing anything particularly interesting.
I rarely point out "foibles." I point out when arguments don't make
sense, when they aren't sup****ted by facts, or when people trump-up
subjective opinion as if it was fact.
> Regardless of the history, you're describing an unneeded limitation that
> gets in the way. I doubt the poster who described a turtle graphics
> approach to drawing a box would want that limitation. You told us you
> don't want it.
You've both missed the point and got the point wrong. The "unneeded
limitation" comes from the nature of the solution. I invite you to
reread what I wrote.
> It's possible that something good might come out of their limited
> viewpoint. Sometimes it's just a waste. I read that there was a
> mechanical approach to TV images that involved a spinning disk -- it
> successfully produced an image but it wasn't competitive with cathode
> ray tubes. I read that it's theoretically possible to create analog
> electronic circuits to get roughly the same results as any computer
> program, but for most purposes the complexity and the stability issues
> aren't worth it. If people get stuck in a limited viewpoint and they
> don't want to come out, isn't that their problem? They might possibly
> develop something interesting despite themselves. It's kind of you to
> offer a hint of a way out, but when they don't want to hear it, why
> berate them?
You have a very low threshold for "berate."
I have no problem with people who have a limited viewpoint. The problem
comes from when those people pontificate outside their limited view, or
who use distortion and wild cynicism to make their points.
I know my limits in terms of experience and viewpoint, and I keep those
limits in mind when I issue opinions. I would never say (for example)
that because I didn't understand the terminology and tools that a class
of programmers use that they must have came up with it just to make
themselves feel superior to others, to guarantee job security, or
because they don't want to think. But here in comp.lang.forth, such
insults are tossed out by you and others all the time. I'm sorry if you
don't like being called on such statements. But there is a simple way
to stop me dead in my tracks: Make statements you can sup****t.
|
