On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim are *deliberately*

Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you.  You 
have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.

If there is a misunderstanding, it is not deliberate on my part.  We 
don't seem to be using words in the same way is all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim are *deliberately*

> Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you.  You 
> have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.

  Fine, you are not doing it deliberately. You are misunderstanding what
I wrote because you are stupid?

  Is that better?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2009 11:10, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>>> Jim are *deliberately*
> 
>> Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you.  You 
>> have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.
> 
>   Fine, you are not doing it deliberately. You are misunderstanding what
> I wrote because you are stupid?
> 
>   Is that better?
> 
Before continuing this fight. Please remember Jim is a native speaker 
and you are not. Which means that he may have a better knowledge of what 
words actually mean in English but also that he may be forgetting that 
that is not the language we are speaking here. The language here is that 
ugly derivative known as international English/global English or 
whatever you want to call it. By definition nobody is a native speaker 
of that.
Apart from the language issue there is also that issue of you not being 
able to read his mind. My estimate is that there is no way you can win 
that argument.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Before continuing this fight. Please remember Jim is a native speaker 
> and you are not. Which means that he may have a better knowledge of what 
> words actually mean in English but also that he may be forgetting that 
> that is not the language we are speaking here. The language here is that 
> ugly derivative known as international English/global English or 
> whatever you want to call it. By definition nobody is a native speaker 
> of that.
> Apart from the language issue there is also that issue of you not being 
> able to read his mind. My estimate is that there is no way you can win 
> that argument.

  I tried to explain myself as well as I could (about why vi is different
from regular text editors) and I really think that everybody does understand
what I mean. He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was
saying and instead chose to nitpick about why "that's exactly what you do
with vi as well", completely ignoring the differences I was talking about.

  Well, that's fine, but when he gets all cocky and presumptuous and starts
yelling things like "don't you dare to tell me *blaa blaa*" it goes a bit
too far.

  Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
either way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>
>  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>

You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
It does not mean instinctive.


>  Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
>has never used the program before.
>

That is "instinctive".

>  Intuitive does not mean that you find it easy to use after having years
>of experience.

True.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
>rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
>either way.

You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
at the end of your sentence or not.

Andrel is wrong, we are not speaking "International" English. Americans will
always speak American English and the English will speak "standard" English or
the Queen's English. Each country that has its own variation of English will
naturally speak and write it. I speak and write Stephen's English and I often
have a hard time communicating. 
Sae nae mair fechtin

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
> >
> >  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
> >

> You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
> It does not mean instinctive.

  I have never heard to word "instinctive" being used in the context of
computer program user interfaces. I have heard the word "intuitive" used
a lot, and the meaning has always been approximately "a first-time user
(who may or may not be fluent with computers in general) can more or less
easily start using the program from the visual clues only, without having
to read tutorials or help text".

  In the specific case of text editors I would consider "intuitive" if
you can use the basic functionalities of a text editor program you are
using for the first time if you have ever used any other common text
editors, and other programs in that system in general.

  You say that "intuitive" does not mean that, and that "instinctive" is
the more correct word. Do you have any actual concrete reference to this?
Some actual examples where "intuitive" is *not* being used in the way I
described above, and instead "instinctive" is?

  Theoretical nitpicking about semantics is one thing, practical language
as used by the majority is another.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >
> >  Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
> >rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
> >either way.

> You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
> at the end of your sentence or not.

  It doesn't matter? So now you decide what I wanted to express with what
I wrote?

  No, I didn't call him stupid. I asked him if he would have preferred me
to call him stupid instead of assuming he was nitpicking on purpose.
If you deliberately want to interpret it in a different way, then I suppose
there's nothing I can do about it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Apr 2009 06:54:52 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >  Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
>> >rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
>> >either way.
>
>> You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
>> at the end of your sentence or not.
>
>  It doesn't matter? So now you decide what I wanted to express with what
>I wrote?
>

No, no, no, no!

I decided nothing I'm telling you what a native English speaker would take from
what you wrote. I would not presume to tell you what you think. Your command of
the English language is fantastic, so good in fact that I generally forget that
it is a foreign language for you. But as Andrel has pointed out on several
occasions, to avoid confusion and offence we should use International English.
Personally I don't think that will happen especially with the Brits. (We Scots
get offended when the Southern English say that they can't understand us and
want subtitles on Scottish TV programmes.) 

>  No, I didn't call him stupid. I asked him if he would have preferred me
>to call him stupid instead of assuming he was nitpicking on purpose.

Even so that is still offensive it is as good as calling him stupid. As a lesson
in culture, there are many places in the UK where if you said that to a male. It
would be a prelude to a physical fight. Trust me on this it is not a good thing
to say.

There are a few places where a woman would "glass" you too. (NB no smileys)

>If you deliberately want to interpret it in a different way, then I suppose
>there's nothing I can do about it.

Now you are presuming to know that I think but maybe if you read my reply
without prejudice you will see that I am trying to be helpful.

XXX
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Apr 2009 06:52:35 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>> >
>> >  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>> >
>
>> You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>> It does not mean instinctive.
>
>  I have never heard to word "instinctive" being used in the context of
>computer program user interfaces. 

Neither have I.

>I have heard the word "intuitive" used
>a lot, and the meaning has always been approximately "a first-time user
>(who may or may not be fluent with computers in general) can more or less
>easily start using the program from the visual clues only, without having
>to read tutorials or help text".
>

Yes I agree but you said:
On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
>has never used the program before.

And that would be instintive IMO.

>  In the specific case of text editors I would consider "intuitive" if
>you can use the basic functionalities of a text editor program you are
>using for the first time if you have ever used any other common text
>editors, and other programs in that system in general.
>

So would I.

>  You say that "intuitive" does not mean that, and that "instinctive" is
>the more correct word. Do you have any actual concrete reference to this?
>Some actual examples where "intuitive" is *not* being used in the way I
>described above, and instead "instinctive" is?
>
>  Theoretical nitpicking about semantics is one thing, practical language
>as used by the majority is another.

There is a difference IMO between common speech and technical speech. When
talking about computer systems you (not you Warp but you, everyone) should be
careful with the terminology you use. I agree what you meant was described as
intuitive but what you said is described as instinctive. As far as I know we,
the human race, have no instinct relating to computers but with a little
experience and learning we can have intuition. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message