Re: OT: Bye!!

* Paul Bennett said on 2006-02-03 01:50:38 +0100
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:19:58 -0500, 轡虫 <snapping.dragon@...>
> wrote:
>
> >It might do for some of the posters here to remember that some of us
> >are just learning, not used to lists like this, or both. It can be
> >easy to forget and assume that everyone is on the same page as you
> >are, so to speak.
>
> Amen. That's very true, and while it ought to be obvious, the problem is
> somewhat self-fulfilling, or self-predicting, or something.
>
> I have other thoughts, and a large digression on my personal style, but
> they're clearly not appropriate right now.
Enter the "canned rant". If there is something that keeps coming back,
it is worth sweating out the ultimate rebuttal/nail-in-coffin for, then
to be pasted when the problem comes back. I'm still working on the "Why
ontology-wankers are such utter loons"-rant so I leave the "it's not
malice but stupidity"-rant and "reading a manual won't kill you"-rant
and "change the damn subject line already"-rant and "the map is not the
friggin terrain"-rant and its twin "don't get lost in the
terminology-jungle"-rant[1] to you excellent lot.


t., whose writing of da Master-thesis is left with a completely ruined
grasp of the English language. No suave repetition of words allowed to
build cadence for rhetoric gains in da Holy Writ! *gah* How many
synonyms are there for "describe" anyway? (Don't answer that.)