Python education survey

Rick Johnson rantingrickjohnson at
Tue Jan 3 00:27:14 EST 2012

On Dec 31 2011, 11:12 pm, Dominic Binks <dbi... at> wrote:

> I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no
> validation necessary.  You could potentially try to validate it's use
> but again that's not in your power.

Usage begets validation. By using words in a manner that is improper
we validate the continued existence of stupidity.

> I think you need to go back to school to understand what a dictionary
> is. (FYI, a dictionary codifies usage, not the other way around.)

So there are no standards by which a dictionary must meet? The sheeple
should just read and accept any garage that the dictionary writers
dictate? Sadly, a dictionary has the power to give legitimacy to a
word. When we expand the definitions of words like "pretty" and reduce
those definitions to the absurd AND then include those absurd
definitions in a "dictionary" NOW we have just given lunacy the
justification it so desires.

> Perhaps you mean, because more precise words or phrases for these uses
> exist?  By your token 'work' should refer to physical activity which is
> not appropriate in this context and probably 'fine' should refer to a
> payment that is made having broken some rule or regulation thus leading
> to monetary reparation.

Yes, i used the word "work" improperly here. Just another example of
the corrupting influence of garage verbiage. Thanks for bring this to
my attention!

> > Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
> > properties of a tangible object),
> Because many words have more than one meaning and their context
> describes the meaning.  For example 'Time flies like an arrow, fruit
> flies like a banana'.  I know you can parse and understand that but the
> sentences are precisely alike, yet completely different.

And that is just my point: by adopting so many meanings of a word that
are dependent on context, we obfuscate our communication.

> rr said: """Supposed to ->  required|expected"""
> probably 'intended' would be better here since 'supposed to' indicates
> that you should do this, but it is not required (pretty much the
> opposite for your given translation).

Actually, no. Consider this sentence: "We are supposed to-->[required
to|expected] follow the law, but sometimes i just cannot get used to

> rr said: """ Use to ->  accustomed|acquainted"""
> Sorry to be picky, but "use to" refers to application as in "When I say
> 'idiot', in this context 'idiot' I use to mean 'person who cannot speak
> English as it is commonly used'."

Completely wrong! Consider this: "I USED TO wear a tutu however i just
never could get USE TO the ridicule from others"

> rr said:  """Right (OOC) ->  Correct"""
> While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct'
> can be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for
> it's usage in 2011

So just because people have been using a word out of context we should
just continue? Why?

> rr said: """Hard (OOC) ->  Difficult"""
> Phrases to mean 'difficult' or 'tough' come from at least 1886 so again,
> it's use in this context is hardly new.

New or not, it's wrong!

> rr said: """Pretty (OOC) ->  very"""
> Pretty on it's own doesn't mean very at all.  (God knows where you got
> that idea from.) When combined with another adjective, such as hard,
> pretty does enhance the adjective.  However, pretty difficult is not the
> same as very difficult.  Pretty, in this context would probably be
> better defined as 'somewhat' or 'quite'.  (Oh and it's use in this
> context can be traced back to 1565.)

Pretty is by far the most ubiquitous use of a word in a manner that is
"out of context". If you don't believe me, grep this group for all the
occurrences of the word "pretty", and see if ANY instances of this
word are used to describe "the pleasurable physical attributes of a
tangible object". I would safely say that 99% are used out of
context. :-(

Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets

Do any of you remember the Unicode thread from way back? If so, you
will remember all the well known trolls who ranted about "how the
words you use shape the way your brain processes information".
Choosing the easy way out is detrimental to your future evolution.
Stop propagating your stupidity memes and use your F'in brain for

More information about the Python-list mailing list