"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:d3gg50$2hl8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <d3ges3$2gcu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>>
>>Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
>>again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if
>>people
>>spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
>>this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
>>responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
>>therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
>>
>>I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
>>society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks,
>>but
>>Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the
>>spirit
>>nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
>
> Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
> again? If so,
> so be it. But for crying out loud!, it'd sure help if a person
> spoke up and said
> "hey, I'm five times as arrogant as anyone else on this on this
> newsgroup and I
> don't care how many times you explain to me there's another
> perspective other
> than the one that I hold, I already knew I was right before I
> wrote my first
> post" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the
> thread while
> their blindness to any opposing views therefore timewastingly
> vexing to their
> correspondents.
>
> I know admitting planet-sized arrogance is not the mode de jour in
> modern
> society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks,
> but what the
> heck, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit
> nor the esteem
> in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
>
> too tired to argue

I can admit that I'm arrogant.

I can also admit when I don't understand something, or when I've got something wrong. And I have the courtesy to offer rationale when I profer opinion.

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:425BDD03.4020405@gmail.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if people spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several) responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
>>
>> I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks, but Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the spirit nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
>>
>>
>
> Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!

I just don't enjoy having a long and time-consuming debate when people don't read the posts and/or don't understand the subject matter but continue to argue.

I just think it's a matter of courtesy to back up your opinions with argument, and to admit if you don't know something. Personally, I don't think any less of people who say "please explain", and it helps both parties, since the one whose statements are not being understood may be putting them badly. (Or they may be wrong!)

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opso437qk423k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:27:36 +1000, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
>> again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if
>> people
>> spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
>> this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
>> responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
>> therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
>>
>> I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
>> society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks,
>> but
>> Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the
>> spirit
>> nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
>
> If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because they don't  understand the subject matter.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a debate involves opinion coupled with rationale. One without the other is worth nothing, just an inconsiderate waste of peoples time.

If person X puts forward an argument and person Y responds with opinion but no rationale, how can the debate proceed in a manner useful to either party? Either person X will suspect person Y is ignorant of the issues, or will assume that person Y thinks person he/she (X) is too stupid to be deserving of proper rationale. Either way, it doesn't constitute a useful debate.

The broader point I was trying to make is that admitting ignorance should not be and, IMO, _is not_ something bad. Quite the contrary; it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter. It's like the word has achieved the same stature as the word 'criticise', in that it always has entirely pejorative connotations, and we've not yet found an equivalent to 'critique'.

I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it. It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.) And if someone says to me they don't understand something I've said, then I must have failed to explain it well and/or fully, so it's an opportunity for advancement for me.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:10:49 +1000, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
> "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:opso437qk423k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:27:36 +1000, Matthew
>> <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>> Perhaps this may be taken as me being a see-you-next-Tuesday once
>>> again? If so, so be it. But Bobing hevns!, it'd sure help if
>>> people
>>> spoke up and said "hey, I don't understand the subject matter of
>>> this conversation" rather than continuing to make (several)
>>> responses in the thread while their ignorance remains opaque, and
>>> therefore timewastingly vexing, to their correspondents.
>>>
>>> I know admitting ignorance is not the mode de jour in modern
>>> society, and especially not so in the wolf-pack world of geeks,
>>> but
>>> Far Out!, it's really not hard, and it diminishes neither the
>>> spirit
>>> nor the esteem in which you're held. (Often quite the reverse.)
>>
>> If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
>> they don't  understand the subject matter.
>
> I'm not saying that.

Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, which, I have resisted the urge to post much too, due to the desire to throttle you bodily for casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I post.

> I'm saying that a debate involves opinion
> coupled with rationale. One without the other is worth nothing, just
> an inconsiderate waste of peoples time.

You seem to have taken great offence at my "I disagree" comment. To my mind the polite response to such a comment is "why?" not a sarcastice remark. I hardly think "I disagree" wasted any of your time, in fact it saved some, you didn't have to read my reasoning, yet, if you were not interested in it.

(what wasted our time was this argument about it).

The reason I did not post a reason immediately was due to being rushed for time, plus I thought you remembered my reasoning/position from the last time we talked of this very issue/idea.

If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is what you should post. Just because the medium has changed, common courtesy has not.

> If person X puts forward an argument and person Y responds with
> opinion but no rationale, how can the debate proceed in a manner
> useful to either party? Either person X will suspect person Y is
> ignorant of the issues, or will assume that person Y thinks person
> he/she (X) is too stupid to be deserving of proper rationale. Either
> way, it doesn't constitute a useful debate.

(see above)
Assumption is the mother of all ...

> The broader point I was trying to make is that admitting ignorance
> should not be and, IMO, _is not_ something bad. Quite the contrary;

I agree wholeheartedly.

> it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it
> badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
> nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this
> industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't
> know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or
> any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just
> a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter.

To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.

> It's like the word has achieved the same stature as the word
> 'criticise', in that it always has entirely pejorative connotations,
> and we've not yet found an equivalent to 'critique'.

Similar to how the word 'discriminate' has changed in meaning and is now entirely negative.

> I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it.
> It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never
> caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
> rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on
> I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)

I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly offensive when you implied however indirectly that I was doing this.

The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I _will_ backup my opinion with rationale, I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding, I'd appreciate the same in return.

If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm particularly friendly.

My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an enemy). Until you understand their position you cannot possibly move them to yours. The best way IMO to understand the other side is to question and to give opinion and gauge the reaction. At the same time you have to acknowledege that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell down this time) otherwise the debate stalls (as it did this time).

Regan

>>> If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because they don't  understand the subject matter.
>>
>> I'm not saying that.
>
> Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the desire to throttle you  bodily for casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I  post.

Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not understood the subject matter. But that does not mean to say that I therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does not follow from the other.

(Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one issue. Bob preserve us.)

> If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I  disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed, common courtesy has not.

The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication are different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup conversations.

I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the blindingly obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I disagree" and I'd say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would cost time due to the latencies, and stifles the debate. I've never seen such behaviour on a ng before (save as a deliberate tactic), and I doubt very much that it'd prove popular.

>> it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put
>> it
>> badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
>> nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in
>> this
>> industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they
>> don't
>> know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance,
>> or
>> any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than
>> just
>> a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific
>> matter.
>
> To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took  offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.

What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up their opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand something, so as to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.

>> I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit
>> it.
>> It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's
>> never
>> caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
>> rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack
>> on
>> I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)
>
> I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly  offensive when you implied however indirectly that I was doing this.

Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no plausible reading of my post that could support that interpretation.

> The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the  process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I _will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,

And yet you did not.

>  I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,

I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context of a ng is not courtesy, it is a waste of your correspondent's time.

> If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm particularly  friendly.

I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree that I've taken a front-foot approach to the issue, and that egos are bruised.

> My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy  enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly move them to yours. The  best way IMO to understand the other side is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the reaction. At the same time you have to acknowledege  that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  time) otherwise the debate stalls (as it did this time).

If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be "do tell" or "why is that" or "I heard about a thing called ...". It ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"


It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save us all time and just ignore posts that are absent rationale.

Shut up, both of you!

On TV, I saw this discussion between two tops of their respective areas. One was the best astronomer in this country, and the other was the arch bishop.

They were discussing whether Bob exists.

Contrary to expectations, the discussion was enjoyable -- as opposed to an increasing amount of noise here.

BUT THEY DID RECOGNIZE that they didn't understand, or even could not understand the other guy's points. They had had such a different upbringing, outlook on the world etc. They even had no common words at several occasions.

Needless to say, at the end, they both remained in their respective beliefs. And they both knew that they really couldn't get through to the other guy. But the entire discussion was amicable, and unheated. They also showed utmost respect for each other, and never tried to say "this is like this". Instead they said "in my opinion" all the time.

Turned out they had written a book together! Discussing the very same thing throughout the book. It had started out as an email exchange a year earlier. And they had become good friends too.

-----

I've pointed out several times lately, that as programmers we do have hugely differing environments and lives. We do different things.

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that, in their back yards, every accomplished programmer starts to feel competent, and know "how it is". But we also have to appreciate the fact that the _world_ just isn't the same for everybody.

Someone doing five-nines reliability programs just sees the world differently than someone in a more "average" world. And both may BE RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME, in their respective worlds. And that's as it should!

But, please, don't believe that you live in the same world, with the same rules and what's Right. Just don't.

-----

Ideally D will cater for both worlds. And a host of others too.

-----

PS, please, both (and all others who've participated), have respect for my diplomatic wording here. It took some discipline and restraint.


regards,
Georg "the one who really knows, so listen to ME" Wrede




Matthew wrote:
>>>>If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because
>>>>they don't  understand the subject matter.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that.
>>
>>Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the desire to throttle you  bodily for casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I  post.
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not understood the subject matter. But that does not mean to say that I therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does not follow from the other.
> 
> (Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one issue. Bob preserve us.)
> 
> 
>>If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I  disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed, common courtesy has not.
> 
> 
> The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication are different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup conversations.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the blindingly obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I disagree" and I'd say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would cost time due to the latencies, and stifles the debate. I've never seen such behaviour on a ng before (save as a deliberate tactic), and I doubt very much that it'd prove popular.
> 
> 
>>>it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it
>>>badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me
>>>nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this
>>>industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't
>>>know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or
>>>any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just
>>>a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter.
>>
>>To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took  offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.
> 
> 
> What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up their opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand something, so as to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.
> 
> 
>>>I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it.
>>>It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never
>>>caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The
>>>rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on
>>>I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)
>>
>>I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly  offensive when you implied however indirectly that I was doing this.
> 
> 
> Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no plausible reading of my post that could support that interpretation.
> 
> 
>>The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the  process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I _will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,
> 
> 
> And yet you did not.
> 
> 
>> I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,
> 
> 
> I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context of a ng is not courtesy, it is a waste of your correspondent's time.
> 
> 
>>If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm particularly  friendly.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree that I've taken a front-foot approach to the issue, and that egos are bruised.
> 
> 
>>My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy  enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly move them to yours. The  best way IMO to understand the other side is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the reaction. At the same time you have to acknowledege  that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  time) otherwise the debate stalls (as it did this time).
> 
> 
> If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be "do tell" or "why is that" or "I heard about a thing called ...". It ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save us all time and just ignore posts that are absent rationale.
> 
> 
> 

Fine by me. :-)

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:425CED12.7030303@nospam.org...
> Shut up, both of you!
>
> On TV, I saw this discussion between two tops of their respective areas. One was the best astronomer in this country, and the other was the arch bishop.
>
> They were discussing whether Bob exists.
>
> Contrary to expectations, the discussion was enjoyable -- as opposed to an increasing amount of noise here.
>
> BUT THEY DID RECOGNIZE that they didn't understand, or even could not understand the other guy's points. They had had such a different upbringing, outlook on the world etc. They even had no common words at several occasions.
>
> Needless to say, at the end, they both remained in their respective beliefs. And they both knew that they really couldn't get through to the other guy. But the entire discussion was amicable, and unheated. They also showed utmost respect for each other, and never tried to say "this is like this". Instead they said "in my opinion" all the time.
>
> Turned out they had written a book together! Discussing the very same thing throughout the book. It had started out as an email exchange a year earlier. And they had become good friends too.
>
> -----
>
> I've pointed out several times lately, that as programmers we do have hugely differing environments and lives. We do different things.
>
> WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE that, in their back yards, every accomplished programmer starts to feel competent, and know "how it is". But we also have to appreciate the fact that the _world_ just isn't the same for everybody.
>
> Someone doing five-nines reliability programs just sees the world differently than someone in a more "average" world. And both may BE RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME, in their respective worlds. And that's as it should!
>
> But, please, don't believe that you live in the same world, with the same rules and what's Right. Just don't.
>
> -----
>
> Ideally D will cater for both worlds. And a host of others too.
>
> -----
>
> PS, please, both (and all others who've participated), have respect for my diplomatic wording here. It took some discipline and restraint.
>
>
> regards,
> Georg "the one who really knows, so listen to ME" Wrede
>
>
>
>
> Matthew wrote:
>>>>>If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because they don't  understand the subject matter.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not saying that.
>>>
>>>Sorry, that is the impression I have recieved both from my recent discussion with you, and this "blowing off of steam" thread, which, I have  resisted the urge to post much too, due to the desire to throttle you  bodily for casting aspersions about my understanding of things to which I  post.
>>
>>
>> Well, yes, I had the impression from several posts that you'd not understood the subject matter. But that does not mean to say that I therefore assert that disagreement == ignorance. One does not follow from the other.
>>
>> (Nor does it mean I think you're a fool or I'm a genius. It's one issue. Bob preserve us.)
>>
>>
>>>If you imagine we're sitting down for a polite debate, and I say "I  disagree" what is your remark going to be in reply? _That_ is what you  should post. Just because the medium has changed, common courtesy has not.
>>
>>
>> The fact is that the forms, nuances, timings, etc. of communication are different betwen in-person and in-newsgroup conversations.
>>
>> I find it ridiculous that you're even making me point out the blindingly obvious, but: In person, you'd say "I disagree" and I'd say "Pray tell?" and you'd tell me why. In a ng that would cost time due to the latencies, and stifles the debate. I've never seen such behaviour on a ng before (save as a deliberate tactic), and I doubt very much that it'd prove popular.
>>
>>
>>>>it's a nice place to put new and interesting things. May be I put it badly enough to warrant it, but Justin's reaction saddens me nonetheless because it's representative of an attitude rife in this industry where people *really* don't want to ever admit they don't know something, and bristle at the mention of the word ignorance, or any suggestion thereof, as if it's a term of abuse rather than just a (temporary) state of someone's understanding on a specific matter.
>>>
>>>To be completely honest I understand Justin's reaction as I also took  offence at the aspersions you cast in this thread.
>>
>>
>> What aspersions was I casting? I was asking people to (i) back up their opinions, (ii) admit if they don't understand something, so as to aid fruitful debate. I stand by that wholeheartedly.
>>
>>
>>>>I'm ignorant on a lot of things, and I'm always happy to admit it. It never makes me feel diminished, or unintelligent, and it's never caused me problems either academically or in the workplace. (The rare occasions - less than a handful - where I've tried to crack on I know something has always ended badly so I just don't bother.)
>>>
>>>I too have learnt this life lesson, which is why it was particularly  offensive when you implied however indirectly that I was doing this.
>>
>>
>> Piffle. In no way did I intend to imply that, and there's no plausible reading of my post that could support that interpretation.
>>
>>
>>>The whole point of my posting here is to contribute and learn in the  process. If I disagree with you, I _will_ tell you so, I _will_ backup my  opinion with rationale,
>>
>>
>> And yet you did not.
>>
>>
>>> I _will_ do so with courtesy and understanding,
>>
>>
>> I maintain that stipulating opinion without rationale in the context of a ng is not courtesy, it is a waste of your correspondent's time.
>>
>>
>>>If I do not backup an opinion with rationale, as in this case, I'd appreciate a 'friendly' reminder. I dont find your sarcasm particularly  friendly.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I've been sarcastic in respect of this, but I agree that I've taken a front-foot approach to the issue, and that egos are bruised.
>>
>>
>>>My goal in a debate is to first understand the other side, "know thy  enemy" as they say (not that I consider the other side an enemy). Until  you understand their position you cannot possibly move them to yours. The  best way IMO to understand the other side is to question and to give  opinion and gauge the reaction. At the same time you have to acknowledege  that you understand their position (this is perhaps where I fell down this  time) otherwise the debate stalls (as it did this time).
>>
>>
>> If you're in roam mode, then the appropriate punctuation would be "do tell" or "why is that" or "I heard about a thing called ...". It ain't "I disagree.</end of message>"
>>
>>
>> It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere, so in future I'll save us all time and just ignore posts that are absent rationale.
>>
>> 

pragma wrote:

>>>
>>
>>Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!
>>
> 
> 
> If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:
> 
> FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)
> 
> - EricAnderton at yahoo

WTF?!?



-- 
-PIB

p.s. :P
--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch

Paul Bonser wrote:
> pragma wrote:
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!
>>>
>>
>>
>> If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:
>>
>> FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)
>>
>> - EricAnderton at yahoo
> 
> 
> WTF?!?
> 
> 
> 

Ditto.
I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh... STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds

In article <d3k2e6$2gb0$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
>
>Paul Bonser wrote:
>> pragma wrote:
>> 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I don't understand the subject matter of this conversation!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it helps, here is a coarse translation for cellphone users:
>>>
>>> FYI, TGIF & CYA L8R PPL.  BTW, STFU & RTFM :)
>>>
>>> - EricAnderton at yahoo
>> 
>> 
>> WTF?!?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>Ditto.
>I understand FYI, CYA, L8R, PPL, BTW, and RTFM. But that's it. Ohh...
>STFU... I know that ;). So it's only TGIF.

Thank goodness it's friday?