Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #380723

Re: bart again (UCX64)

Show all headers | View raw

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 28.12.2023 02:14, James Kuyper wrote:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You have not so far answered the question.  An answer would
>>>> have included [...]
>>>
>>> I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English
>>> dictionary.  I did answer.
>>
>> I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up.  A question is a
>> request for information, and I had understood an answer to be a response
>> to that question which provided the requested information.  The answer
>> could be erroneous, or deliberately wrong or misleading, but it was not
>> an answer unless it at least pretended to provide the requested
>> information.  I was familiar with the common practice of saying that, for
>> instance, "The guard asked 'Who goes there?', and the the commando
>> answered with a knife to the guard's heart.", but I always considered
>> that calling something like that an "answer" was a kind of joke.  I might
>> have imagined that a dictionary would provide a more general definition
>> of "answer" that included such things, but I expected that there would
>> also be a more restricted definition that excluded any response that did
>> not provide the requested information.
>> However, that's not what I found.  For instance, Wiktionary defines an
>> answer as "something said or done in reaction to a statement or
>> question."  I saw similar definitions in several other online
>> dictionaries.  Therefore, ANYTHING you do when reacting to a question
>> qualifies as an answer, whether it be a lie, or a non-sequitur, or a
>> blow to the head.
>> Therefore, I reluctantly concede that you did answer the question.  You
>> did not, however, provide the requested information.
>>
>> I find those definitions problematic.  If a form says "Answer the
>> following questions", is i really instructing you to do whatever you
>> want to do?  If so, what's the point of providing such an instruction?
>
> This is a nice contribution to a somewhat heated conversation.  Yes, an
> answer without information is of little use (on the information level).
>
> Technically it has been answered, but arbitrary answers alone do not
> help.  [...]

I think it's worth reviewing what happened.  I should say that my
review here is being done from memory so some of the details may
be a little off, but the principal points should be reasonably
accurate.

Keith Thompson posted a message in the newsgroup here in a thread
I was not involved in.  In response to his posting I posted a
very short reply.  Keith responded to that posting asking for
a fuller explanation of my comment.  (Let me add parenthetically
that his action in doing that is perfectly reasonable.)

When I saw his response, I realized that my statement had been
misunderstood.  I explained that, and said something to the
effect of not wanting to try to unravel the confusion because it
wasn't worth the trouble.  Keith responded to that posting,
asking again for an explanation of the statement that he thought
I made but was not what I had meant to say.

I responded again trying to explain that there had been a
miscommunication, and (as I recall) saying again that trying to
unravel that misunderstanding was too much trouble.  I took
responsibility for the confusion of my original statement, and
said "I withdraw my previous statement.  Okay?".  Keith responded
to that posting, probably asking his same question again, however
I don't remember any specific details.

I don't remember anything else until at some later point Keith
accused me of not having answered his question.  To be clear,
what he was asking me was to give an explanation of a statement
that I never made, and I had tried to explain that I never made
it, and in any case had no interest in discussing, even assuming
that I know what it is he meant with his question.  My impression
is that Keith never understood that what I originally said was
not the same as what he was asking about.

Since I tried not once but twice (or maybe a third time, I'm not
sure) to explain that he was asking for an explanation of
something I never said, and said in effect that the confusion was
my fault, and explicitly withdrew my original statement, I feel
justified in thinking that I gave a fair response to his
inquiries.  If he's not satisfied with what I said, well, he is
entitled to his own views.  But rather than saying something
about himself not being satisfied, he made an accusation against
me.  IMO the accusation made is off the mark, in both the letter
and the spirit of the English language.  Feeling that I had been
unfairly accused, I felt obliged to respond in an effort to
convey that.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-23 14:58 -0800
  Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:59 -0800
    Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:30 +0100
      Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-24 11:57 -0500
        Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:26 -0800
        Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 09:15 +0100
          Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:16 -0800
            Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 09:20 +0100

csiph-web