Semantic analysis of one response (was Re: Autocoding project proposal.)

[Timothy Rue]

On 26-Jan-02 04:06:12 Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>Let's try a little semantic analysis in the hopes it can shed some light
>on what is being discussed here, if anything.  I'm making allowances for
>the incredibly bad grammar but I'm trying to capture the intended meaning,
>then to reduce it to its essence.  I did this not to deride the writer, but
>in an honest attempt to figure out what the hell this is all about.

[snip]

>Translation: The project is well-defined.
>Translation: It's software. *
>Translation: It has a user interface.
>Translation: Programmers have difficulty understanding unusual things. *
>Translation: Programmers don't adjust to new methodologies.
>Translation: Software doesn't generally automate software. *
>Translation: Software needs two users interfaces and one software interface.
>Translation: VIC controls data flow between applications. *

>The net effect of your above comments seems to be this:

> "VIC is unique software which manages interfaces between applications.
>  But pretty much all of you are incapable of understanding it."

>My response is therefore:

> "Thanks for the insult, and I'm not interested, but couldn't
>  you have said it more concisely?"

>-Peter


The conclusion is that you want to make me out to be insulting you and
others, but that fails simple direct logic. I'm asking for help to do
this.

There are three valid options here:

1) you understand it or think you do and are threatened by it.

2) you understand it or think you do and want it for yourself, for the
advantages you see in it.

3) you really don't understand it.

All three of which would result in the same general output of public
denial. What can be preceived in silly, irrational, illogical remarks.

There are several places on my web pages to explain each of the nine
commands in short general terms. There is also detailed descriptions of
the commands in the form of what can be preceived as manual pages.

There is also working code and example files to use in understanding one
of the commands and facets of most of the others.

It's really not that complex a tool to have a hard time understanding.
But most of all I don't see any real effort to do so. There are other
tools existing that can be and have been used to describe the commands
while noting the limitation of those tools, their failure to fullfill the
commands they are being used to describe.


There is also what I do know, and it has shown me that arrogance and the
certainty and sureness that it appears to present can be and often is
used to mislead the less knowledgable and weak minded. Especially on
matter regarding the abstract world of computers.

So if you want to insult yourself and other, you are free to do so, but
you are a liar in trying to make it out that it's what I'm doing.

There is far more logic in why you or anyone else would do that, then
there is in me seeking help with insults.

And I'm supposed to believe are a programmer who deals in logic?


---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<