Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Andrew has a profound interest in mathematics

  Which is precisely why I didn't understand his post.

  I'm profoundly interested in programming, but that doesn't mean I would
post every single little piece of trivial software I make. If I come up
with something *really* ingenuous then I might be compelled to share it
with the few others here who might be interested in clever programming
tricks.

  Thus maybe I just missed something in his post. That's what I asked.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   No, I don't know anything about nomograms and little about postscript,
> but the post seemed so trivial that I asked why it should be of any
> interest. Is there something there I'm not seeing?

Drawing some lines and a few numbers on a sheet of paper *looks* pretty 
easy. However, you try making it so that when you draw the lines, you 
actually get the *right* answer.

This is more difficult than it sounds...

Sure, the result might just be a few numbers on a page, but it took me 
ages to get it to produce the correct answers. (Do you know the 
mathematical properties of similar triangles? I had to look them up...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>  No, I don't know anything about nomograms and little about postscript,

Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
have been posted, and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
to knowing little about the subjects involved!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
> have been posted

  Where exactly?

  Yes, always interpret everything in the worst possible way.

> and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
> interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
> has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
> to knowing little about the subjects involved!

  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
your opinion, is wrong and rude.

  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
worse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
>> have been posted
> 
>   Where exactly?
> 
>   Yes, always interpret everything in the worst possible way.
> 
>> and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
>> interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
>> has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
>> to knowing little about the subjects involved!
> 
>   So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> your opinion, is wrong and rude.
> 
>   Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> worse.
> 

It's the language barrier, Warp.

Backhanded complements and snide remarks are an art form in English, and 
exploited throughout drama and comedies. While you were just asking 
'What makes this interesting?' it comes across as though you are 
suggesting that the math and lines are 'too simple to actually be 
interesting or useful.'

I wouldn't ask about a Rube Goldberg machine, 'So, what does it actually 
do?' because the tone suggest that I find it useless for 'just' breaking 
an egg.

Post a reply to this message

>> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't
>> have been posted
>
>  Where exactly?

"What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."

>  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> your opinion, is wrong and rude.
>
>  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> worse.

Keep digging!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't
> >> have been posted
> >
> >  Where exactly?

> "What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."

  You are reading more than there is in my text.

> >  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> > thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> > your opinion, is wrong and rude.
> >
> >  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> > worse.

> Keep digging!

  Was that a note to self or something?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> "What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."
>
>  You are reading more than there is in my text.

OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you that in 
English it is considered rude to give the *impression* of pretending 
ignorance to undermine someone elses work.  Even if you really are ignorant, 
don't write something that others may take as you pretending to be 
ignorant - because you'll be labelled as rude and offensive.  If you are a 
clever person, you need to be even more aware of this, as people will often 
think you are pretending not to understand if you say so.

In this case Andrew clearly stated exactly what he had done and posted his 
results.  People who read this ng regularly will have guessed that you 
probably understood exactly what Andrew had done, yet you seemingly 
pretended you "didn't get it" and asked "what else is there that i didn't 
get".  That's rude, when there obviously isn't any more to it.

Another example, if you are seeing someone give a bad presentation, you 
don't then ask at the end "please send me the final version when you've 
finished it".  Or at a dinner party, you don't say after a small main course 
"great starter, what's the main?".  I'm sure you can think of more examples, 
maybe it's acceptable in Finnish?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you that in 
> English it is considered rude to give the *impression* of pretending 
> ignorance to undermine someone elses work.  Even if you really are ignorant, 
> don't write something that others may take as you pretending to be 
> ignorant - because you'll be labelled as rude and offensive.  If you are a 
> clever person, you need to be even more aware of this, as people will often 
> think you are pretending not to understand if you say so.

> In this case Andrew clearly stated exactly what he had done and posted his 
> results.  People who read this ng regularly will have guessed that you 
> probably understood exactly what Andrew had done, yet you seemingly 
> pretended you "didn't get it" and asked "what else is there that i didn't 
> get".  That's rude, when there obviously isn't any more to it.

> Another example, if you are seeing someone give a bad presentation, you 
> don't then ask at the end "please send me the final version when you've 
> finished it".  Or at a dinner party, you don't say after a small main course 
> "great starter, what's the main?".  I'm sure you can think of more examples, 
> maybe it's acceptable in Finnish?

  You just made an excellent essay on the first rule of the internet:
If something can be interpreted more than one way, someone will interpret
it in the worst possible way.

  Basically the rationale is: "He wrote something which I feel can be
considered rude, ergo he was being deliberately rude, ergo I should
get angry with him for being deliberately rude."

  This alternative rationale is completely out of question: "He wrote
something which could be interpreted as rude, but maybe he didn't mean it
that way."

  While both interpretations are possible, the principle of maximization
of indignation requires for the worst possible interpretation to be chosen.

  Whatever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Jul 2008 09:47:07 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  While both interpretations are possible, the principle of maximization
>of indignation requires for the worst possible interpretation to be chosen.

One other point that need to be taken into consideration is that this
is an ongoing thing. You, yourself, said that you must stop baiting
Andrew and you did.

I thought that the first rule of the internet was not to explicitly
trust people who you don't know.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message