C wrote:
> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used
> in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
> 
> lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).
> 
> C
> 

Heh! Oops!  Wasn't my intention. I was just wondering if he knew something about the term that I didn't.  Matthew's got so much experience in the writing field that I almost daren't question him. No matter. He mentions positive and negative meaning connotiations, and I forgot about the two.  He's right, of course. But "to critique" is actually equal to the positive connotation.  "To criticise" just seems to carry a weightier application.

"Critiquing" is the softer use of the two in the English language. He may have wanted to use "Criticise" to stress getting the job done over reviewer acquiescence.  Perhaps I'd say criticise is to proofreading, as critiquing is to reviewing.  Proofreaders axe without impunity (I know that for a fact). :-(

John

> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
used
> in a more purposeful and forceful context here.

No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand (which may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US "have a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that peoples of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad, whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative might be said.

Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair to judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all the insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so* clever", "that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other to-the-max comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly insincere, but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello, how are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark "Hello, good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal onslaughts with her interviewees. :)

Curiously, the other half of the time the Aussies will tell you not to be a wanker - the funniest being that "he/she's got two dicks" - and to pull your head out of your arse, which may be the English side of their culture coming out. The downside of that is that they've almost as keen as the Pomms (that's what they call us; you'd probably say Limeys) to knock people down when they've achieved something (one of the reasons I left England), and this is called the Tall-Poppy Syndrome (where you have your head cut off if you grow taller than your peers.) I am led to believe that this is *not* the American way, which is a jolly good thing, IMO.

Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in verbalising our thoughts. :)

Yours bluntly

Oswald the 'Orrible

> lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).
>
> C
>
> "John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.01.09.08.01.06.174809@telus.net...
> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:
> >
> > Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can
also.
> > I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
> > contributing).
> >
> > Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people involved the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could
re-apportion
> > some of the time to the D Journal project.
> >
> > For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are still plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides
reviewing):
> > D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history, D to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D
games
> > (yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc,
etc.
> >
> > Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has come.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > John
> >
> > PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
> >
> > > Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:
> > >
> > >  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good
idea
> or
> > > not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby
> criticism
> > > can have negative and positive connotations.)
> > >  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles, verify
> any
> > > performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
> > >  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As
with
> any
> > > other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that
techniques
> are
> > > their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or to
> > > simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
> > >  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently
> interesting
> > > to go in the journal.
> > >
> > > That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to
be
> a
> > > straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's
seen
> to
> > > be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited
(perhaps
> > > expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.
> > >
> > > Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
> > > reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D
> facilities,
> > > and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will lead
to
> a
> > > biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others
have
> > > somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate the subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather
> than an
> > > informed and dispationate source of information.
> > >
> > > Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for
The
> D
> > > Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable,
practical
> and
> > > informative information for the practise of D.
> > >
> > > Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online,
> unadvertised,
> > > free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame
and
> > > philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got
> permission
> > > from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging, which
> in
> > > and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right
> places.
> > >
> > > But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the honour
> of
> > > being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become
> legend,
> > > just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and
> bound up
> > > in book form.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> >
>
>

yes, and the reason that we say  "he has two dicks" is
because he couldnt be that silly pulling one!
 :o))

Phill.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:btn8u8$1vlb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
> used
> > in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
>
> No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand
(which
> may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US
"have
> a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
> good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that
peoples
> of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.
>
> When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad, whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative might be said.
>
> Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair
to
> judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all
the
> insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so*
clever",
> "that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other
to-the-max
> comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly
insincere,
> but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello,
how
> are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark
"Hello,
> good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal
onslaughts
> with her interviewees. :)
>
> Curiously, the other half of the time the Aussies will tell you not to be
a
> wanker - the funniest being that "he/she's got two dicks" - and to pull
your
> head out of your arse, which may be the English side of their culture
coming
> out. The downside of that is that they've almost as keen as the Pomms (that's what they call us; you'd probably say Limeys) to knock people down when they've achieved something (one of the reasons I left England), and this is called the Tall-Poppy Syndrome (where you have your head cut off
if
> you grow taller than your peers.) I am led to believe that this is *not*
the
> American way, which is a jolly good thing, IMO.
>
> Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in verbalising our thoughts. :)
>
> Yours bluntly
>
> Oswald the 'Orrible
>
> > lol, good catch!  you're already reviewing :).
> >
> > C
> >
> > "John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.01.09.08.01.06.174809@telus.net...
> > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1100, Matthew wrote:
> > >
> > > Here! Here! That's the way to motivate the ranks! I'll do what I can
> also.
> > > I'm willing to do my small part of reviewing and (and eventually
> > > contributing).
> > >
> > > Time is a shortage for everyone, I'm sure; but the more people
involved
> > > the better.  And besides, I spend so much time perusing the copious amounts of information on this newsgroup that I think I could
> re-apportion
> > > some of the time to the D Journal project.
> > >
> > > For those of us that DON'T feel like D experts, I'm sure there are
still
> > > plenty of D-related topics that would suite our level (besides
> reviewing):
> > > D on different linux distributions, coverage of D toolkits, D history,
D
> > > to <language> comparisons (well maybe leave this for the experts), D
> games
> > > (yeah!), D competitions, interviews with the designer/creator ...etc,
> etc.
> > >
> > > Looks like fun.  I think your right: the time of the D Journal has
come.
> > >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is used in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
> > >
> > > > Primarily, a reviewer would do the following:
> > > >
> > > >  1. Criticise the techniques described, i.e. whether they're a good
> idea
> > or
> > > > not. (Note: I'm using criticise in its standard meaning, whereby
> > criticism
> > > > can have negative and positive connotations.)
> > > >  2. Validate the techniques, i.e. test that the code compiles,
verify
> > any
> > > > performance/effectiveness claims, etc.
> > > >  3. Comment on the originality, i.e. try to spot any plagiarism. As
> with
> > any
> > > > other publishing, authors will be expected to stipulate that
> techniques
> > are
> > > > their own work, or provide fair attribution to original authors, or
to
> > > > simply state that "this is a widely used technique"
> > > >  4. Comment on whether the techniques described are sufficiently
> > interesting
> > > > to go in the journal.
> > > >
> > > > That all sounds a bit formal and drab, but in reality I expect it to
> be
> > a
> > > > straightforward and enjoyable experience for all. (One of my prime motivations for this is to learn a lot more about D!) I'll make sure submissions are passed anonymously to authors, so that everything's
> seen
> > to
> > > > be fair and above board. And reviewers are, of course, invited
> (perhaps
> > > > expected?!) to contribute their own articles/tips/notes.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewers are needed because (i) I simply won't have time to do the
> > > > reviewing, (ii) I don't know enough about the full spread of D
> > facilities,
> > > > and (iii) having only one or two people doing the reviewing will
lead
> to
> > a
> > > > biased publication. As you all know, Walter, myself and many others
> have
> > > > somewhat fixed and strong opinions. Letting any one person dictate
the
> > > > subject matter will make the journal an unpopular mouthpiece, rather
> > than an
> > > > informed and dispationate source of information.
> > > >
> > > > Even though the idea's nearly two years old, we have high hopes for
> The
> > D
> > > > Journal. Hopefully it can quickly become a source of reliable,
> practical
> > and
> > > > informative information for the practise of D.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore it's up to all of you guys to contribute; that's your only motivation for the moment. Naturally, in its initial online,
> > unadvertised,
> > > > free form, it will not be paying anyone any fees, so it's just fame
> and
> > > > philanthropism for the first year or two. For my part, I've got
> > permission
> > > > from CUJ to do this, and in fact they've been quite encouraging,
which
> > in
> > > > and of itself is a great sign that D is being noticed in the right
> > places.
> > > >
> > > > But if D makes it as far as many think it will, you'll have the
honour
> > of
> > > > being there on the ground floor, and maybe your words will become
> > legend,
> > > > just as those early writings in the C++ Report are now C++ lore and
> > bound up
> > > > in book form.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
>used
>> in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
>
>No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand (which may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US "have a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that peoples of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.

I wasn't going to get into this...but somebody's got to answer this Englishman :-D.

Hmm, never thought the word to be an Americanism (or Canadianism, in my case). That could be true, but it's deeply ingrained in our dictionaries here, that's for sure.  "Critique" is used in serious conversation this side of the hemisphere; as much as a euphimism of "criticise" as it seems, it still carries a fair bit of weight. I don't put it on the level of a cultural concoction (although all words originate somewhere).  English is notorious as a language full of ambiguity.  Therefore any word that clarifies intentions shoud be a useful adaption, especially, I would think, in writing where it's very easy, without the benefit of expression and emotion, to put across the wrong feelings. Au contraire, for the frank and honest person, "critique" can be very useful in expressing what he or she really means.  Like anything, yes, people can also abuse the context to avoid confrontation or soften their interaction.  But that issue is, quite literally, "beyond words".

>When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad, whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun to verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative might be said.

Ha! That's what critique is supposed to mean, but in only the good context. Like I said above, people may choose to use words as they wish.  It's not the word's fault! But the more words that express different "moods", the better, I think.

>Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair to judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia - which is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all the insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so* clever", "that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other to-the-max comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly insincere, but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello, how are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark "Hello, good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal onslaughts with her interviewees. :)


CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be categorized in the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar politeness and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but rarely mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness is not a strong point.

Although I would be considered atypical.  I like to be frank and prefer people to be frank.  Those that posture are almost a waste of time, although I find myself doing it sometimes inadvertantly :-0 .  I probably just destroyed my previous argument in favor of "critique" with this paragraph!

>Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No doubt if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in verbalising our thoughts. :)
>
>Yours bluntly
>
>Oswald the 'Orrible

Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)

Analytically yours,

John

"John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btnd3o$261m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize" is
> >used
> >> in a more purposeful and forceful context here.
> >
> >No. Critique is an American English-ism that, as far as I understand
(which
> >may not be that far; I have scant philological expertise), is intended to connote "good intentions". This seems to be along the lines of the US
"have
> >a nice day" (instead of simply goodbyte) and the Australian "that's sooo
> >good" (instead of simple "that's ok") saccharin over-politeness that
peoples
> >of less politically sensitive cultures find faintly silly.
>
> I wasn't going to get into this...but somebody's got to answer this
Englishman
> :-D.

Well, there'd be no point my having written it otherwise ...

(You can tell I've got writer's block on the book at the moment, eh? <G>)

> Hmm, never thought the word to be an Americanism (or Canadianism, in my
case).

I'm pretty sure it is. (That may be all I'm sure of in this discussion.)

> That could be true, but it's deeply ingrained in our dictionaries here,
that's
> for sure.  "Critique" is used in serious conversation this side of the hemisphere; as much as a euphimism of "criticise" as it seems, it still
carries
> a fair bit of weight. I don't put it on the level of a cultural concoction (although all words originate somewhere).  English is notorious as a
language
> full of ambiguity.

True.

> Therefore any word that clarifies intentions shoud be a
> useful adaption, especially, I would think, in writing where it's very
easy,
> without the benefit of expression and emotion, to put across the wrong
feelings.

Except that much of the rest of the world, whether right or wrong, finds American culture chock full of contradictions, and this is one of the most stark, albeit probably the most innocuous. We marvel at how such a combative (and fundamentally quite brave and good, to be sure) society must wrap itself and its individual citizens in cotton wool, yet, for (a blunt) example, let them bear arms and sue each other up the wazoo. :)

For my part, I share the snooty but fundamentally friendly disdain that most British / Australians / New Zealanders have for the US, but undoubtedly only because every society/culture thinks that its best. (If we could elide cultural superiority and religious dogma, there'd not be much left to fight about, methinks.) But I am also cluey enough to see that the US probably represents, in many respects, a destination point for other cultures. Here in Australia, the culture is getting more multi-ethnic, and there are therefore extra cautions that must be taken. What's an amusing quip in one culture is the start of a blood-feud in another, as we are seeing here with a worrying spate of gangland killings in some ethnically polarised suburbs of Sydney at the moment - our first real taste of unabashed gun-toting gang revenge killings.

The same's happening back home in the UK, and I guess it must come to all countries with net immigration. I guess I'm a case in point: coming to Australia and reproducing and disrupting the Australian status-quo by making my kids use correct grammar. <G>

> Au contraire, for the frank and honest person, "critique" can be very
useful in
> expressing what he or she really means.  Like anything, yes, people can
also
> abuse the context to avoid confrontation or soften their interaction.  But
that
> issue is, quite literally, "beyond words".

I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, and that's probably what got me to even respond to you guys and your "critique?" posts. I very much value politeness, but at the same time I despise political correctness. Australia's a real funny place to live when you're conflicted in this way.

I remember being horrified for several years at the general use of the term Wog. In Australia this is a somewhat affectionate term for people of Mediterranean ethnicity; in Britain it is an *extremently* offensive term for black people, exactly equivalent to the N-word in the US. (I've read the book, and I know I'm not qualified to say it even in an analytical sense, so I know not to spell it out!) The first few times I heard people saying it I can recall actually having my heart racing in anticipation of some ugly scenes developing.

I can remember having huge rows with friends here trying to explain how being called a white-bastard in a predominantly white country is not equivalent to an Aboriginal being called a "black fella" or, my least favourite word ever, a coon.

But the other side of Australian society has the classic white/male/affluent guilt, and promulgates all the nonsensical side of political correctness. There are person-hole covers, not manhole covers. I even heard a tennis commentator bashfully correct himself because he was talking about the ball-boys and ball-girls before being prompted by the co-commentator that they are all ball-persons. It's the same deal with blackboard vs chalkboard. This then feeds back into the reactionary side of society who resist change even more. I've had conversations with people who comment on the absurdity of having to use the term chalkboard, and then in the next breath they're telling you that the golleywogs should have been left on the jam (that's jelly to you NW folks) jars!

> >When the English say criticise they mean to analyse, whether good or bad, whereas it seems that Americans (and lately some Australians) require the additional "verbised" (since it's only recently been promoted from noun
to
> >verb for this purpose) critique to avoid hinting that something negative might be said.
>
> Ha! That's what critique is supposed to mean, but in only the good
context.
> Like I said above, people may choose to use words as they wish.  It's not
the
> word's fault! But the more words that express different "moods", the
better, I
> think.
>
> >Of course, one man's pointless nannying may be another person's necessary societal grease, and until one has lived in a given country it's not fair
to
> >judge. All I can say is that having come from England to Australia -
which
> >is said to be halfway between England and the US in culture - I find all
the
> >insincerity irritating. You never know whether anyone really does think something is good or not, since Aussies are hyperbolic ("she's *so*
clever",
> >"that guy's a *world class* business development guru", and other
to-the-max
> >comparisons) a good half of the time. They also do the annoyingly
insincere,
> >but quite funnny, thing in the the automatic greeting handshake "Hello,
how
> >are you?" + "Good thanks, how are you?". I used to amuse myself by responding to recruiters calling by just saying "Hi", since without fail they'd still say "Fine thanks", before I was ground down and joined the hot-air party. In fact, a Greek-Australian comedien has a trademark
"Hello,
> >good thanks" to her interviewees which begin the one-sided verbal
onslaughts
> >with her interviewees. :)
>
>
> CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be
categorized in
> the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar
politeness
> and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but
rarely
> mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness
is not
> a strong point.

How do you ever know when someone's being honest? Too hard.

> Although I would be considered atypical.  I like to be frank and prefer
people
> to be frank.  Those that posture are almost a waste of time, although I
find
> myself doing it sometimes inadvertantly :-0 .  I probably just destroyed
my
> previous argument in favor of "critique" with this paragraph!
>
> >Anyway, it's all good education for living in the global village. No
doubt
> >if we make the move to the US in the near future, me and my bluntly Australian wife will have to learn to wear an extra veneer of caution in verbalising our thoughts. :)
> >
> >Yours bluntly
> >
> >Oswald the 'Orrible
>
> Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)

Well, I'm sure you realise that underpinning much of the middle/upper class English self-deprecation is an absolute and innate sense of superiority. We probably get that from the French, who's blood has been cursing round our veins (and those of our American cousins) for the last 940 years. The other part of Englishness would be, in my utterly amateurish guestimation, from our Celtic background; when my son asks me what all that hairy stuff on my back is I tell him it's the legacy of thousands of years of our warrior fathers <G>! Arrogance on both sides, but probably no different from everyone else in the world. In fact, I'd be interested to know if anyone could name more than 10 countries who's cultures are not arrogant.

Anyway, we've gone waaaaayy OT. I'm just glad we're all of the D culture here, and everybody's simply delightful. I shall have to remember that John may be dissembling in the future though ...

Yours with salt firmly pinched

Dr Proctor

>Well, there'd be no point my having written it otherwise ...
>
>(You can tell I've got writer's block on the book at the moment, eh? <G>)

:-) Good use of a Canadianism "eh?", well placed, subtley appended.

>
>I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue, and that's probably what got me to even respond to you guys and your "critique?" posts. I very much value politeness, but at the same time I despise political correctness. Australia's a real funny place to live when you're conflicted in this way.

Manners are a virtue. And I concur on your analysis of political correctness.

>>
>> CONTRAST: The Canadian Character Profile... Canadians cannot be
>categorized in
>> the same group as Americans.  We have our own reputation of peculiar
>politeness
>> and wishywashyness.  We apologize for almost anything and everything, but
>rarely
>> mean it.  We are very distrustful of anything and everything.  Frankness
>is not
>> a strong point.
>
>How do you ever know when someone's being honest? Too hard.
>

Very hard, indeed.  Perhaps I was too harsh on the Canadian culture (*oops*
there I go vacillating).

>>
>> Which is worse, habitual insincerity or false modesty ? ;-)
>
>Well, I'm sure you realise that underpinning much of the middle/upper class English self-deprecation is an absolute and innate sense of superiority. We probably get that from the French, who's blood has been cursing round our veins (and those of our American cousins) for the last 940 years. The other part of Englishness would be, in my utterly amateurish guestimation, from our Celtic background; when my son asks me what all that hairy stuff on my back is I tell him it's the legacy of thousands of years of our warrior fathers <G>! Arrogance on both sides, but probably no different from everyone else in the world. In fact, I'd be interested to know if anyone could name more than 10 countries who's cultures are not arrogant.

Ha ha! Wow, you did get my drift then.

>Anyway, we've gone waaaaayy OT. I'm just glad we're all of the D culture here, and everybody's simply delightful. I shall have to remember that John may be dissembling in the future though ...

Touche! :-)

This is about the only group in which we could get away with this.  Once again, Matthew, you have provided an entertaining read.  I'll have to check out your book and see how you dazzle your readers there :-).

Apologetically,

John

In article <btnh4g$2d2n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>"John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
>> In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
And the other contributors.
>> >> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize"

(... a very interesting discussion ignored here)

Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(

>Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.

Yes, it was hairsplitting. Hardly something I should have started.  But look at all the goodies I got from Matthew. :-D.

>
>I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(
>
>

LOL.  You are right.  I might be best to stay away from it!  Or be much more accommodating :-D.

Later,

John

LOL!

"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btnl6h$2jdv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <btnh4g$2d2n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >"John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> >> In article <btn8u8$1vlb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> And the other contributors.
> >> >> PS Criticize? Isn't the proper term "Critique?" Perhaps "Criticize"
>
> (... a very interesting discussion ignored here)
>
> Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.
>
> I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(
>
>

We're just mates, shooting the breeze, aren't we?

:)

> >Well, this really seems to be an exponentially growing discussion about something that started out, more or less, as hair splitting.
>
> Yes, it was hairsplitting. Hardly something I should have started.  But
look at
> all the goodies I got from Matthew. :-D.

I dropped from five chapters in five days to achieving absolutely nothing in the last 48 hrs, apart from a lot of NG surfing and a bike ride. I have to stop prevaricating, and posting, so maybe there'll be silence for a while.

> >
> >I'd hate to be on the D journal review board.   :-(
> >
> >
>
> LOL.  You are right.  I might be best to stay away from it!  Or be much
more
> accommodating :-D.

It'll be a lot more succinct. You can bank on that. Once I'm past my deadline, I've several major things on the go - some template libs for D; two articles and a column in one week; I need to prepare STLSoft 1.7.1; the CD contents for the book; and something big may be happening with STLSoft in Feb (though I must do my usual princess and her secret act and demure on the details for the moment) - so all of my actions on The D Journal will be short and sweet.

It's been fun though.

John, anytime you want a friendly debate, I'm your man.

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Director, Synesis Software (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

Synesis Software Pty Ltd
P.O.Box 125
Waverley
New South Wales, 2024
Australia

-----------------------------------------------------