Gilles Tran wrote:

> 47f7dabb$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> OK, now you're just describing *me*. :-(
>>> I thought about including a disclaimer that 'any resemblance to a p.o-t 
>>> regular or mascot is purely a coincidence' but decided against it.
>> Heh. And to think a few people claimed I had writing skills... despite the 
>> fact that I can't spell, can't write a report, and have lousy sentence 
>> construction. :-S
> 
> You *** do *** have writing skills, otherwise people would just skip your 
> posts and never answer them (even if it's just for snarking). You know how 
> to tell stories and make them interesting, even ones based on really dull 
> material. The self-pitying angle comes off pretty well and is somehow 
> endearing (when it could be horribly annoying), in some Woody Allenesque 
> way. Also your spelling isn't bad, except for some occasional glaring 
> lapses. What you may lack is better material to work with and some literary 
> background to give you inspiration and pointers, but otherwise what your 
> write is enjoyable.
> 
Sure, but this and his blog are something different than a report of a 
couple of weeks stay at a research lab. Spelling mistakes and bad 
sentences are common in newsgroups because people take too little time 
and write too late at night (my god it is nearly 12 already). In blogs 
it may depend on the writer, but normally you expect less trivial errors 
but allow for structural abnormalities as it is a free form text format. 
But if you are unable to construct a logical line of argument in a paper 
you can not be a good programmer as the skills required are the same. 
That was one of the things the author of 223 meant in his paper, I 
think. And if he didn't, let me say it. In summary: yes, I also think 
Andy may be a reasonable programmer. ;)

Post a reply to this message