Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Hi Mark,

Please stop removing large portions of my post when responding to them if
they are still appropriate, which I believe much of my last response was.
It causes the conversations to go in circles. Instead, leave the running
conversations so we can reference each others comments and so the flow of
the conversation is more obvious to readers.

I'll give it one more shot (I see our peers have given up ;)...

Exactly. There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the
post. Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not
empirical.

But you've only addressed half of my point.

Your point was that a priori statements were less valuable than those
supported by evidence (if I understood you).

No, my point wasn't a pseudo-definition of a priori. There is simply no
evidence either way, so I choose to "err on the side of caution" as well, to
quote Jon :)

I was just pointing out that your statement was even less supported by
evidence than mine.

But according to your logic, the "evidence" in support of your own
statements is actually the same as the "evidence" against you. In other
words, you think that since we have no proof that it wasn't clear to people
that we should just assume that it was (I've quoted you on this below).
Well, if it was absolutely clear to us then we wouldn't be in this
conversation to begin with. Obviously, it's not clear to us even though we
understood what the OP meant. You claim that it was clear to you. So,
according to your logic, the ratio is ~3-1 against you :)

There is also no evidence that it helped anyone, so you have no base for
your claim.

1) I'm not claiming the definition helped anyone, so this statement isn't
relevant. 2) But in fact the definition did help me.

Mark: "Hence, 3) It seems that the definition is not confusing."

Therefore, it may have been helpful to others as it has helped you, but it
certainly wasn't confusing to anyone - that's what you're implying. If you
don't believe that, then there is absolutely no reason for this
conversation. My point was simple: you can have absolutely no idea who it
has confused or who it has helped except for yourself.

I was suggesting that we can't know either way, with any degree of
certainty

I'm not seeking certainty, and neither are you or Jon. Nor (just to
forestall a comment I can see coming) should we try.

Actually, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to be certain about whether
people are confused or not, and I don't see why you thought that I wouldn't
have agreed.

I think I've made it quite clear that my vote is for clarity (err on the
side of caution), not try to find out what some random sample of the
population expects from us as volunteers, in terms of clarity. I KNOW that
there are many people with varying levels of skill that read newsgroup
posts. I don't just assume that there is absolutely no confusion in any
given post, as you obviously do from some of your remarks in this thread,
one of which I've quoted above.

<snip>

As for any OP's level of expertise, what you assume as a respondent may
set the basis for the amount of detail in your reply, but any assumptions
made thereof should by no means allow a reduction in clarity in any form.

This statement just has no meaning. "In any form"??

Yes, information comes in many different forms and clarity is part of them
all. There can be clarity (or lack thereof) in terminology, grammar, sample
code, format, etc.

I'm suggesting that any assumptions that you make about the OP's level of
expertise shouldn't have any affect on the level of clarity that you choose
in your posts, in any of the above forms that I've given as examples. I was
also suggesting that the LOD could vary slightly based on those same
assumptions.

It is impossible to cater to everyone's needs.

It's not impossible to try.

Then let's see you "try" to learn French or Russian, if you think it's so
important to cater to everybody. I mean, c'mon. :)

In an English speaking newsgroup?

You're just being ridiculous.

--
Dave Sexton


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some pro-gunners STILL confused by CDC report
    ... They were there to support my ... This thread was about your attempt to disparage the group of people you call "pro-gunners" and your misrepresention of evidence and choice of words in order to do so. ... "Some pro-gunners still *being" confused by CDC report" would mean that the CDC report has and is confusing a portion of pro-gunners. ... _still confused_ you'd need more recent quotes where the exact same sentiment was expressed. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
    ... There is no actual evidence that anyone was confused by the post. ... Hence, any assumption that the post was confusing is a priori, not ... to be as clear as possible when posting since you never really no who will ... Regardless, and what I think the actual was about, is that you ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Bu$hs Gulag Trial Plan Shotdown
    ... Rules of evidence and burden of proof are essential pillars to any true ... Yes, the Bush supporters are fond of confusing the two, ... No one is suggested rules of evidence and burden of proof ... have a place on the battlefield, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
    ... I have no problem in saying that I'd probably screw up using multiple ... I completely grant that any statement could be confusing to anyone. ... actually no evidence that the definiton is hard to understand. ... so you *could* argue that it's a valid statement. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: If evolution is proved. . .
    ... [snipped for brevity and clarity] ... Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or ... Evidence - An indication, a sign, indications, signs. ...
    (talk.origins)