February 17, 2009
"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gndshs$1a2n$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I'm a native English speaker, and even *I* find it very difficult to read that kind of writing. It's bad enough that I usually just don't even bother to try to read it and just move on to the next post/web-page/etc. There's plenty of things out there written with *good* language that it's just not worthwhile to waste time on the poorly-written stuff. Therefore, I see bad language like that as an effective way to make people not even listen to you.
>
> Like you, I just don't bother reading things that have poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, are one giant paragraph, are all caps, etc. When I have bothered to read one now and then, I find the thinking just as disorganized as the presentation, and so a waste of time.
>
> Such is not *always* the case, it may be art.
>
> eecummings:
> =============================
> she being Brand
>
> -new;and you
> know consequently a
> little stiff i was
> careful of her and(having
>
> thoroughly oiled the universal
> joint tested my gas felt of
> her radiator made sure her springs were O.
>
> K.)i went right to it flooded-the-carburetor cranked her
>
> up,slipped the
> clutch(and then somehow got into reverse she
> kicked what
> the hell)next
> minute i was back in neutral tried and
>
> again slo-wly;bare,ly nudg.  ing(my
>
> lev-er Right-
> oh and her gears being in
> A 1 shape passed
> from low through
> second-in-to-high like
> greasedlightning)just as we turned the corner of Divinity
>
> avenue i touched the accelerator and give ===========================================
>
>  And superdan plays ghetto-speak like an instrument <g>.

Oh my god, I'm rarely able to make any sense out of song lyrics (not that I usually mind), but that looks like someone took some already unclear lyrics and ran them back and forth a couple of times through a language translater. ;)


February 17, 2009
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:05:56 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> I'm a native English speaker, and even *I* find it very difficult to read that kind of writing.

Same here. I just skip over anything superdan has to say nowadays because of his communication style. I get the feeling though, he actually has some good things to say, its just a pity they take too much effort to translate into English.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
February 17, 2009
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:31:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:56:04 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>>>> <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>>>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?),
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil
>>>>>>>>> "barbarians", now
>>>>>>>>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is
>>>>>>>>> in its
>>>>>>>>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic
>>>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>>>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the
>>>>>>>>> west.
>>>>>>>>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic
>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle,
>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own
>>>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into
>>>>>>>> allegedly
>>>>>>>> being pro-"white power".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4
>>>>>>> sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
>>>>>>> here's a quote for example from
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>> Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and
>>>>>>> Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend
>>>>>>> good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah
>>>>>>> (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O
>>>>>>> Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites”
>>>>>>> (Qur'an [Qur'an 9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have
>>>>>>> expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by
>>>>>>> sword and against the hypocrites by tongue
>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly
>>>>>>>>> Jesus was
>>>>>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
>>>>>>>> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they
>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish
>>>>>>>> Bible. As
>>>>>>>> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments,
>>>>>>>> Moses,
>>>>>>>> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and
>>>>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>>>> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you
>>>>>>>> get the
>>>>>>>> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the
>>>>>>> Jewish concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the
>>>>>>> old testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one
>>>>>>> defines different, and contradicting new concepts.
>>>>>>> Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the
>>>>>>> christian faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a
>>>>>>> software concept) with Judaism.
>>>>>> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
>>>>>> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
>>>>>> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
>>>>>> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity,
>>>>>> of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was
>>>>>> written down later than the New Testament.
>>>>>> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and
>>>>>> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
>>>>>> possible divergence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I
>>>>> know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is
>>>>> completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether
>>>>> there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or
>>>>> anything like that.)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is
>>>>> clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being
>>>>> unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do
>>>>> better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In
>>>>> case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call
>>>>> someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow
>>>>> the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I
>>>>> haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating
>>>>> shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know one - Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
>>>> And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't eat
>>>> pork and shellfish.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who
>>>>> would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs
>>>> them their life.
>>>
>>> Where did you hear that?
>>> I doubt that since the preservation of life is a holy jewish principle
>>> and which cancels all other commandments in the bible.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I was wrong. These are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>
>>> for example, driving on the Shabat is a a sin but if we're talking
>>> about an ambulance driving to save someone's life than it's becomes
>>> completely "Kosher". As the saying goes: "if you saved one soul of
>>> Israel as if you saved the entire world".
>>>
>>> Kinda the exact opposite of the Jihad concept that other people
>>> believe in.
>>
>>  From Qur'an:
>>
>> "...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul -
>> unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as
>> if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he
>> had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]
>> [1] i.e. in legal retribution for murder, through the requisite channels
>> of justice.
>> [2] i.e. that requiring the death penalty, again through the requisite
>> legal channels.
>>
>> This verse establishes the sanctity of life.
>>
>> (Taken from http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Wanton.Destruction.html)
>>
>
> True Jihad according to Islam is against non-believers (pagans) since from Islamic point of view Jews and Christians are also believers of Allah (albeit with different rituals).

There are two categories of Jihad - greater Jihad and lesser Jihad. Greater Jihad is about fighting yourself, while Lesser Jihad is a warfare. According to Islam Law, Lesser Jihad can only declared by a leader of Islamic Country, i.e. the country where Islamic laws are technically considered to override laws of the state.

There is no such country exists at this moment and thus no-one may start a Jihad.

What you see now is a terrorism and has *absolutely* nothing to do with neither Jihad nor Islam.

> Problems is that, Just like in Christianity there is no requirement to actually *read* the book yourself.

I don't agree. Not only there is a strong requirement to read it (I think you are talking about Quran, don't you?), each district where Muslims live should have at list one person who knows full text of the Holy Qur'an word-by-word.

> Instead there's the religions representative (I forgot the title they use)  that peaches to the public.

Yes, there are. There is a short homily before a pray once in a week (in Friday) in a mosque, that's it.
Modern people are so busy that they spend little (if any) time to read books (of any kind), and that's a great opportunity for them to take a lesson.

> It doesn't really matter nowadays what that book actually says since hardly anyone reads it. what those extremist representatives say is what Muhammad wants and that's it.

February 17, 2009
John Reimer wrote:
> Nick, I'm merely saying that we must take responsibility for what we say, including the potential affect on the listener.

I can't take it any more!

Affect (noun): appearance, expression (on one's face)
Effect (noun): result
Affect (verb): alter, change, produce an effect
Effect (verb): complete, finish
February 17, 2009
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Derek,
>>>>
>>>>>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>>>>>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... you got some statistics to back that up? Most people I deal
>>>>> with have limits (not all the same), so that seems to indicate to me
>>>>> that some swearing behaviour is not acceptable to most people.
>>>>>
>>>> No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within
>>>> certain groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.
>>> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
>>> accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>>>
>> Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like
>> that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.
> 
> Well, you're a product of your environment, so I guess that's not
> really surprising.
> 
>> I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up as
>> "People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks
>> and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be harmed
>> by words.
> 
> I don't quite know what to say to that.   So you're saying you
> wouldn't mind if someone stood behind you uttering profanities all day
> long?  I would find that highly annoying and it would most certainly
> contribute to my stress levels.  Even if it weren't profanities it
> would be highly annoying.  So to say words can't harm you seems
> nonsense to me.  Sure words do not cause physical injury, but are
> physical injuries the only ones that matter?
> 
> --bb

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
That's what you say to a kid who's just been hurt by words.
<g>
Words can make someone angry enough to punch you in the eye. Or declare a war. That's physical enough for me.
They can also cause someone to leave a newsgroup, which is particularly relevant in this context.
February 17, 2009
Christopher Wright wrote:
> I can't take it any more!

Shouldn’t it be “anymore” or “any longer”? ;P
February 17, 2009
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.

Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.

If you've really gone through what I have and weren't affected, then I guess you're just a better person than I.

February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Anonymous Coward <anonymous@cowards.org> wrote:
>
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.
>
> Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.
>
> If you've really gone through what I have and weren't affected, then I guess you're just a better person than I.

I have to agree, 100%.
February 17, 2009
Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.
> 
> Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.
> 
> If you've really gone through what I have and weren't affected, then I guess you're just a better person than I.

I’ve been through that. Almost my whole childhood and youth consisted of being discriminated by class-/sportsmates. But after all I learned a lot just by that - granted, it wasn’t nice and easy but I am pretty damn sure I learned more about the human nature and group dynamics than those people picking on me, or anyone else.

This didn’t make me a nicer person or whatnot, but at some point you start taking every statement with a grain of salt, maybe even laugh about yourself if there’s a reason to. That’s a kind of tolerance that lets you get to know people better, since not everyone thinks twice before saying something, thus sometimes coming out too harsh or even insulting. If you get past that, you mostly find quite interesting people who also able to overcome their own insecurity once you open up a bit. After all most

“Taking harm by words” is a very common phrase... I don’t take any harm if someone swears around like a maniac or talks complete and utter bullshit about me, my family or whatnot (however, I did as a kid). But I do take harm if someone actively doesn’t show respect in my views, work or feelings. Best example for this is a recent argument between a former user in #d and myself. I banned him because of his complete disrespect for me - some people understood it, many didn’t. I on the other hand didn’t understand how people could tolerate such behaviour. It really made me angry.

Ad OT-topic: I was a bit puzzled by the way John brought this issue up, but I completely agree with him. Having content mixed up like that is just plain unprofessional to me - especially if you contribute quite a lot. The possibility to be referenced by someone else is quite high in that case and... well... D has nothing to do with furry or yiffi or whatever. I don’t start drawing at work either (well, except diagrams for my own understanding). *shrug* Just create a blog for your programming stuff and one for your personal stuff, just like most people do in case of email accounts.

Also: wtf guys - stop going all “omg u r so religious”, you nazis. </Godwin’s Law>
February 17, 2009
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Anonymous Coward <anonymous@cowards.org> wrote:
>
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It takes a weak person to be harmed by words.
>
> Let me put it this way: if you've been picked on, put down, *hunted* by the people around you and generally treated as a sub-human piece of worthless garbage for over eight years of your life across both primary and secondary school, often with no friends or even acquaintances for years at a time and came out completely and utterly unscathed, then you are obviously a robot and won't mind when I remove your head.  Because otherwise you have NO FUCKING RIGHT to say that.

First off, I think there should be made a difference between adults and minors here. I think adults can get harmed by words, but at a certain point one is able to identify the mental reaction it incurs and be able to decide to react or not to react upon it. Most minors haven't developed the facilities to do such reflection yet, and there words can really hurt or even have a lasting effect.

I don't think language should be restricted. An observation I make in daily life (of course, this is not universally true) is that religious people are usually more easily offended. When have you heard calls for censorship when someone offended darwinism or Kant's categorical imperatives? At the same time, it happens all the time when someone makes a parody of something that is written in the bible or another religious book. "Offense" means different things to different people, and trying to limit it isn't going to help anyone.

Shouldn't we talk about D or (Belgian) beer here? :^)

Take care,
Daniel