On 18-4-2009 18:28, nemesis wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> as I do speak Dutch at home. Here in this newsgroup we all speak 
>> International English. No matter if your first language is another 
>> variant of English or not that is for everyone of us the second or 
>> third language.
> 
> I agree!  International English is teh shizznit! :D

The what?? Oh, nevermind.

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2009 18:23, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:05:51 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I disagree. You may speak the Queen's English at home or at work, just 
>> as I do speak Dutch at home. Here in this newsgroup we all speak 
>> International English. No matter if your first language is another 
>> variant of English or not that is for everyone of us the second or third 
>> language.
>>
> 
> Of course you disagree but make it work. :P
> 
>>> 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
>> Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
> 
> Aye/Yes

Then the Nac Mac Feegle have done their job.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:24:09 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>What is a bampot 

A headcase.

>and who is this Govan you are speaking of? 

I forgot you are a liberal Dutchman :)

LOL

>Oh, nevermind.

But I do mind. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:28:51 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>>>> Sae nae mair fechtin
>>> Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
>> 
>> Aye/Yes
>
>Then the Nac Mac Feegle have done their job.

Those wee scunners?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> 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.

> Even so that is still offensive it is as good as calling him stupid.

  I'm just tired of people who jump with their "don't you DARE to <blaa blaa>"
at every opportunity, like I had written the greatest of insults.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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".

That would seem to be Jim's 3c definition.

It would seem notepad is as "intuitive" (with arrow keys, mouse clicks to 
position the cursor, etc) as any other Windows program, while neither emacs 
nor vi can be driven at all without learning how to run them.

>   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?

I think instinctive is a particular kind of intuitive. Arrows are 
instinctive but not intuitive. Eye-tracking software would be an instinctive 
interface.

Just MHO.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.

I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
then save and quit. That's just how vi works. It's *not* how every editor 
works. (For example, it's not how visual studio's editor works.) Since you'd 
already said you weren't familiar with vi, I thought perhaps you didn't know 
it could work exactly the way you described.

I wasn't ignoring you. I was correcting what seemed to be a lack of 
knowledge but that was actually apparently a lack of mind-reading. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> want subtitles on Scottish TV programmes.) 

http://vodpod.com/watch/557475-iraq-terrorist-does-not-like-subtitles

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
> thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
> then save and quit. That's just how vi works.

  Then you must be using a different version of vi than I do.

  I start vi with eg. a text file, try to start editing it and... weird
things happen. Nothing happens, it beeps or does weird things.

  I think I explained that in parentheses in my post.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> It would seem notepad is as "intuitive" (with arrow keys, mouse clicks 
> to position the cursor, etc) as any other Windows program, while neither 
> emacs nor vi can be driven at all without learning how to run them.

20-years vi hacker comes in touch with notepad for the first time:
iWhat the crap is this thing?
:wq
iCrap!  How do I kill this process??!!
ZZ
:q!!!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:10:30 -0400, 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?

Hardly.

It's because I have a different perspective.  Quite frankly if you're 
going to continue to insult and presume to tell me what I mean when I 
write, then I shall just plonk you into my twit filter and be done with 
you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was saying

*plonk*

Have fun.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:19:35 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:23:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>> You know what is not intuitive either?  A Boeing user interface.  Yet,
>>> it'll get you farther and faster than your intuitive bicycle. :)
>> 
>> True, but sometimes a bicycle is all you need, you don't need a 747 to
>> take you to the corner market. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, it was a poor analogy because it's not two ways:  once learned the
> basics, vi is excellent as a bike as well!  Just ask any *nix sysadmin.
> :)

Yes indeed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 20-years vi hacker comes in touch with notepad for the first time:
> iWhat the crap is this thing?

Heh. I can't tell you the number of .signature files and mail messages I've 
gotten over the years that end with :wq

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's because I have a different perspective.  Quite frankly if you're 
> going to continue to insult and presume to tell me what I mean when I 
> write, then I shall just plonk you into my twit filter and be done with 
> you.

  You are not going to see this (unless someone quotes me), but I'm going
to write it anyways:

  I wrote that vi is harder to approach than other more "regular" text
editors because it doesn't work like those other editors. With other text
editors you start the program and just start editing. In other words, you
eg. press the 'a' key, and the letter 'a' appears at the cursor position.
You press the down cursor key, and the caret goes to the next line, and
so on.

  I think I expressed that, but you still chose to deliberately nitpick
about what "start editing the file right away" means. I think it was pretty
clear from what I wrote and from the context that I meant that you don't
have to press any "commands" or anything to start editing the file. You
just edit it right away. I was contrasting vi with basically any other
text editor. I was expressing why I find vi so hard to approach.

  This is not a question of persective. This a question of whether you
understood what I wrote or not.

  Then you acted all so mighty and deeply insulted when I dared to hint
that you had deliberately started nitpicking on terminology, rather than
understanding what I wrote.

  So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
alternative? The only other alternative was that you did not understand
what I wrote. I can't believe you would be so stupid as to not to understand
such a simple thing, which is why I chose to believe that you were just
deliberately nitpicking.

  But since you insist in that you were not doing it deliberately, then
fine by me. It means you are stupid. And arrogant as well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
>> thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
>> then save and quit. That's just how vi works.
> 
>   Then you must be using a different version of vi than I do.

No. You start vi with a file, edit it and insert text, and then save it.

It's just that "typing letters" isn't how you insert them, any more than 
using H J K and L are how you move around inside an emacs session.

>   I start vi with eg. a text file, try to start editing it and... weird
> things happen. Nothing happens, it beeps or does weird things.

Right. You need to go into "insert text" mode. You can configure your vi to 
start that way, but most people don't, since most people don't start editing 
by having the first thing they do to be inserting text.  (I.e., most times 
you start vi, you already have the file you're changing.)

Maybe it's because I use vi a lot, so when someone says "you can't start 
with a file, move the cursor, edit text, and then save the file", I'm not 
assuming they meant to add "without having to learn what keystrokes do 
that."  It's not like you can move the cursor, edit text, and save the file 
in emacs without either using a version with menus or learning that C-n is 
down and C-p is up and so on.

Given that there *are* editors where you can't open a file when you start 
the editor, or that you can't move around arbitrarily in the file (because 
it's syntax-directed editing or something), I thought maybe you meant 
something like that.

>   I think I explained that in parentheses in my post.

vi does everything you described. It just doesn't use the "usual" keys to do 
it. Later versions do indeed let you use the arrow keys, and prompt you to 
save the file when you close the window, and even have standard menus on top 
and such.  The original VT100 version doesn't, of course.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:42:28 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  I can't believe you would be so stupid as to not to
> understand such a simple thing, which is why I chose to believe that you
> were just deliberately nitpicking.

You miss a third possibility:  That I genuinely believed what I said.  
The reason I got pissed off is because in your world, either people agree 
with you, they deliberately misinterpret what you say in order to 
'nitpick', or they're stupid.

There are other alternatives to those three options.  And it's time you 
learned that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> editors you start the program and just start editing. In other words, you
> eg. press the 'a' key, and the letter 'a' appears at the cursor position.

People who use vi call that "inserting text", not "just start editing". 
That's the confusion.

> You press the down cursor key, and the caret goes to the next line, and
> so on.

vi does this.

>   This is not a question of persective. This a question of whether you
> understood what I wrote or not.

You say "vi is not like other editors", then you use terms that mean 
something different in emacs and vi (such as what "just start editing" 
means, or "opening and saving the file"), and then you get upset when people 
who you *just said* think those things mean something different 
misunderstand you.

>   So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
> alternative? 

That you're talking to people with a different perspective of what "just 
editing" means, complaining that they have a different perspective, then 
getting mad because they don't understand what your complaint is when you 
use the same words they do to mean something different?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was saying

> *plonk*

  I wonder what really is the point in killfiling a regular visitor here.

  The only effect which that will achieve is that you will end up seeing
most of my posts anyways (because people tend to quote), and the threading
of discussions will become broken because your news reader will drop posts
inside the thread.

  Of course it's not really a question of not seeing anymore what I write
(assuming you killfiled me for real in the first place, rather than simply
pretending). It's just a way of you being pompous and arrogant, to show
how deeply "offended" you are.

  It's also an easy way of trolling, which is quite successful, I must admit.
Killfiling someone usually means that most if not all of what he writes is
insulting or inflammatory. Nobody kills someone just because he makes one
or two inflammatory posts among thousands. The only reason to do it (or
pretend doing it) is to taunt.

> Have fun.

  Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I was responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you might have 
> >> thought you intended to mean. You said you don't start up vi, edit a file, 
> >> then save and quit. That's just how vi works.
> > 
> >   Then you must be using a different version of vi than I do.

> No. You start vi with a file, edit it and insert text, and then save it.

  I repeat: I think I made it pretty clear what I meant when I wrote
"you edit it". No need to nitpick about this anymore.

  If you honestly did not understand it because I expressed it improperly,
then I'll try to express myself more clearly next time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > 20-years vi hacker comes in touch with notepad for the first time:
> > iWhat the crap is this thing?
>
> Heh. I can't tell you the number of .signature files and mail messages I've
> gotten over the years that end with :wq

Like my email messages, "Here's the file, do you think you could printf this out
for me?"  I wish I could say I've only done that once.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:07:14 -0400, triple_r wrote:

> Like my email messages, "Here's the file, do you think you could printf
> this out for me?"  I wish I could say I've only done that once.

I love it - I do that sort of thing all the time.  Not with 'printf', but 
other words, and even go back and correct them sometimes and misspell the 
word the same way a second and occasionally a third time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
> quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
> just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)

Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
each year.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
> > alternative? 

> That you're talking to people with a different perspective of what "just 
> editing" means, complaining that they have a different perspective, then 
> getting mad because they don't understand what your complaint is when you 
> use the same words they do to mean something different?

  Having a different concept of what a term means (which is understandable)
is rather different from deliberately misinterpreting when someone uses that
term to mean something slightly different.

  If I say "vi does not work like most other editors because when you start
it up you can't just start editing the text right away", isn't it rather
clear what I'm referring to, without having to write an essay about the
subject to make it absolutely clear? Even if you disagree with what is
meant by "start editing right away", I don't think it's difficult to
understand what I'm referring to, ie. what is the first basic difference
between vi and most other editors.

  In the context in question, starting to nitpick about what "start editing
the text right away" means was irrelevant and uncalled for. It was not the
point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2009 18:32, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:28:51 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Sae nae mair fechtin
>>>> Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
>>> Aye/Yes
>> Then the Nac Mac Feegle have done their job.
> 
> Those wee scunners?

yes.

Note to our mascot: you are not expected to understand this.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
> foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
> each year.

  It wasn't really an emacs vs. vi argument. Just a question of terminology
and who insulted who and how.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:03:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> if you really killfiled me. 

You obviously have no concept of how I use my newsreader's scoring 
function.  I shall not respond in kind and imply you must therefore be 
stupid because you don't know how I work; I recognise that my usage is 
perhaps different than the norm.

> (If you are just pretending, then you are
> more arrogant than I assumed.)

Sticks and stones, Warp.

Let me give you an alternative definition of "arrogant": presuming to 
tell someone what is in their mind when they wrote something, and then 
implying that if what YOU assume was in their mind in fact wasn't, they 
then must be stupid because there couldn't *possibly* be any other 
explanation.

Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word choice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
>> quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
>> just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)
> 
> Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
> foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
> each year.

It's a consequence of playing with flames. :)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word choice.

  I honestly think your "Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately
misunderstanding you" was uncalled for. I was not in any way or form
trying to insult you (or Darren) in the post to which that was the reply,
and if you have followed my posts during the years, I think that you know
that I don't go around insulting people just for the fun of it (even if
sometimes my choice of words might not be the wisest possible).

  The tone of this thread was very casual and light, and such a sudden
very strong expression of offence was unexpected. I was not trying to say
anything negative about anyone. It got me rather provoked by the accusation
(although in retrospect way too much, but I'm just like that).

  I admit that what I wrote after getting provoked was also uncalled for
and not acceptable behavior.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:49:15 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word
>> choice.
> 
>   I honestly think your "Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately
> misunderstanding you" was uncalled for.

Perhaps.  In my own defense, it was extremely late and it had been a 
pretty rough evening for me.  It was just the "one thing" that pushed me 
a little too far, and you have to admit that you do have a habit 
(9intentional or otherwise) of doing that - this isn't the first 
altercation we've had.

> I was not in any way or form
> trying to insult you (or Darren) in the post to which that was the
> reply, and if you have followed my posts during the years, I think that
> you know that I don't go around insulting people just for the fun of it
> (even if sometimes my choice of words might not be the wisest possible).

Honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell.  I usually chalk it up to cultural/
language differences, but it just struck me wrong last night, and then to 
have you follow up with the implication that if it wasn't an "intentional 
misunderstanding" intended to nitpick just for the sake of having 
something to nitpick (something that, if you've followed my posts over 
the years, you should recognise is not in my general makeup and is not 
something that I do just for the fun of it.  That's not to say that I 
don't like a healthy debate now and again, but it's generally not my 
style to twist people's words in order to provoke an argument or debate).

That's not to say that don't occasionally take the opportunity to "tweak 
someone's nose", but in those cases I try to be very careful to make it 
clear that I am just kidding around and not being serious.

>   The tone of this thread was very casual and light, and such a sudden
> very strong expression of offence was unexpected. I was not trying to
> say anything negative about anyone. It got me rather provoked by the
> accusation (although in retrospect way too much, but I'm just like
> that).
> 
>   I admit that what I wrote after getting provoked was also uncalled for
> and not acceptable behavior.

Fair enough, I apologise for overreacting as well.  Nobody's perfect and 
all that.

It does really get on my nerves when it appears people are presuming to 
tell me what I'm thinking, I put up with a lot of that crap along with  
generally being bullied growing up, and it "pushes my buttons" when it 
appears people are doing it to me or to others around me - and sometimes 
I do react overly strongly as a result of my own personal experiences in 
this area.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences

  In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language differences
as much as inexperience in social interaction.

  When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
sometimes shows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   If you honestly did not understand it because I expressed it improperly,

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Not so much "improperly", but we're 
specifically talking about things that work differently, and "imprecise" led 
to confusion.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Apr 2009 12:36:53 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> 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.
>
>> Even so that is still offensive it is as good as calling him stupid.
>
>  I'm just tired of people who jump with their "don't you DARE to <blaa blaa>"
>at every opportunity, like I had written the greatest of insults.

Even so, it is better to speak to people as you would have them speak to you.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Buddha_Icon_3a.gif' (4 KB)

Preview of image 'Buddha_Icon_3a.gif'

Warp wrote:
>   If I say "vi does not work like most other editors because when you start
> it up you can't just start editing the text right away", isn't it rather
> clear what I'm referring to, without having to write an essay about the
> subject to make it absolutely clear?

No. That's my point. In my mind, I *am* editing text right away in vi. I can 
move the cursor, I can insert and delete, and so on.

Unlike, say, an IDE's editor, where first you have to open the IDE, open a 
project, select a file within that project, perhaps check it out of source 
control, *then* you can start editing the file.

It's hard to know what you meant when the first sentence is "the first time 
I used vi, it was incomprehensible how to open a file and edit it."

Yes, you can't just start typing and have what you type inserted in the 
text. You *can* move around, and open and save files, and so on. It's a 
one-keystroke difference, compared to the major differences you get with IDE 
editors or structured editors.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:53:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> want subtitles on Scottish TV programmes.) 
>
>http://vodpod.com/watch/557475-iraq-terrorist-does-not-like-subtitles

LOL Shades of Fawlty Towers.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
> 
>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>   differences
> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
> 
>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
> sometimes shows.

That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:17:10 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Note to our mascot: you are not expected to understand this.

You wouldn't happen to live in Maastrick? I'm in Brussels next week and need to
go to The Netherlands to post a letter. Would you believe that our Royal Mail
sent my Dutch tax form to America instead of Heerlen?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2009 22:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:17:10 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Note to our mascot: you are not expected to understand this.
> 
> You wouldn't happen to live in Maastrick? 

No, I am close to Amsterdam. There is some interaction with the group in 
Maastricht and some friends living there, but I don't think we have a 
meeting planned next week.

> I'm in Brussels next week and need to
> go to The Netherlands to post a letter. Would you believe that our Royal Mail
> sent my Dutch tax form to America instead of Heerlen?

Uhmm, yes. More people in the states than here so on average... And 
there are some towns called Holland over there. OTOH we have a town 
called America.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:49:01 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 18-4-2009 22:25, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:17:10 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Note to our mascot: you are not expected to understand this.
>> 
>> You wouldn't happen to live in Maastrick? 
>
>No, I am close to Amsterdam. There is some interaction with the group in 
>Maastricht and some friends living there, but I don't think we have a 
>meeting planned next week.
>

Shame.

>> I'm in Brussels next week and need to
>> go to The Netherlands to post a letter. Would you believe that our Royal Mail
>> sent my Dutch tax form to America instead of Heerlen?
>
>Uhmm, yes. More people in the states than here so on average... And 
>there are some towns called Holland over there. OTOH we have a town 
>called America.

But Heerlen is not in Holland, I believe, and I marked the letter "Netherlands".
Our Royal Mail lost 6,000,000 items last year so I won't trust them with this
tax refund letter again.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   If I say "vi does not work like most other editors because when you start
> > it up you can't just start editing the text right away", isn't it rather
> > clear what I'm referring to, without having to write an essay about the
> > subject to make it absolutely clear?

> No. That's my point. In my mind, I *am* editing text right away in vi. I can 
> move the cursor, I can insert and delete, and so on.

  So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
I'm talking about?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
>>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>>   differences
>> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
>>
>>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
>> sometimes shows.
> 
> That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)

Hey, you're dealing with geeks here, don't you know?  The most common 
close social interaction we get is from the pizza delivery guy. :)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:53:54 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
>>>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>>>   differences
>>> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
>>>
>>>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
>>> sometimes shows.
>> 
>> That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)
> 
> Hey, you're dealing with geeks here, don't you know?  The most common
> close social interaction we get is from the pizza delivery guy. :)

Yeah, but as a geek myself, it's been a long time since I personally had 
trouble with social interactions with "normals" (if you know what I 
mean).  I sometimes forget that the tact filter goes on the other way 
when talking with fellow geeks. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:53:54 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
>>>>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>>>>   differences
>>>> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
>>>>
>>>>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
>>>> sometimes shows.
>>> That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)
>> Hey, you're dealing with geeks here, don't you know?  The most common
>> close social interaction we get is from the pizza delivery guy. :)
> 
> Yeah, but as a geek myself, it's been a long time since I personally had 
> trouble with social interactions with "normals" (if you know what I 
> mean).

Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-4-2009 7:02, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:53:54 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
>>>>>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>>>>>   differences
>>>>> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
>>>>> sometimes shows.
>>>> That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)
>>> Hey, you're dealing with geeks here, don't you know?  The most common
>>> close social interaction we get is from the pizza delivery guy. :)
>>
>> Yeah, but as a geek myself, it's been a long time since I personally 
>> had trouble with social interactions with "normals" (if you know what 
>> I mean).
> 
> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)

Are we?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Married geeks

  Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:02:42 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:53:54 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences
>>>>>   In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language
>>>>>   differences
>>>>> as much as inexperience in social interaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>   When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet,
>>>>>   it
>>>>> sometimes shows.
>>>> That's a possibility I hadn't considered. :-)
>>> Hey, you're dealing with geeks here, don't you know?  The most common
>>> close social interaction we get is from the pizza delivery guy. :)
>> 
>> Yeah, but as a geek myself, it's been a long time since I personally
>> had trouble with social interactions with "normals" (if you know what I
>> mean).
> 
> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)

Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:10:45 -0400, Warp wrote:

> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>> Married geeks
> 
>   Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)

I'll ask my wife. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:02:42 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
> 
> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)

whoa!  What happened with all that talk of attracting opposites? :P

Post a reply to this message

>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
> 
> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)

Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false 
hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:41:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
>> 
>> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
> 
> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false
> hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/

My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message