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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #11367 > unrolled thread

Ten rules to becoming a Python community member.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 22:57 -0700
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 02:54 -0500
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Alister Ware <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2011-08-14 10:58 +0000
        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:08 +0100
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-14 08:07 +0000
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOSPAM@xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-14 15:21 +0200
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0100
        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. harrismh777 <harmar@member.fsf.org> - 2011-08-14 15:11 -0500
        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-08-15 12:06 +0000
          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-15 17:44 +0100
            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-08-15 17:14 +0000
              Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-08-16 12:52 +1200
                Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-16 02:59 +0100
                Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-08-15 22:01 -0400
                  Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-16 02:33 +0000
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-08-14 11:23 -0400
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 10:21 -0700
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:38 +0100
        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-15 10:56 +1000
          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-15 04:28 +0000
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-08-14 14:50 -0500
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org> - 2011-08-14 18:01 -0400
        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:35 -0700
          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Christophe Chong <christophechong@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 22:01 -0700
          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-08-16 12:48 +1200
            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-08-15 20:57 -0400
            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-16 11:53 +1000
            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 21:50 -0700
              Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 00:07 -0700
                Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 08:06 -0700
                  RE: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2011-08-16 13:51 -0400
                    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 19:37 +0100
                      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 19:42 +0100
                      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-16 20:03 +0100
                      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 13:13 -0700
                        Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. David Monaghan <monaghand.david@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 22:55 +0100
                          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 16:12 -0700
                            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-16 23:25 +0000
                              Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 16:50 -0700
                                Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-17 00:33 +0000
                                  Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-08-16 20:02 -0500
                                  Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2011-08-16 18:09 -0700
                                  Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 18:47 -0700
                                    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. SigmundV <sigmundv@gmail.com> - 2011-08-17 15:48 -0700
                            Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. David Monaghan <monaghand.david@gmail.com> - 2011-08-17 00:43 +0100
                          Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-17 11:14 +1000
                    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@butterfly.uk.com> - 2011-08-16 19:37 +0100
      Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 23:57 +0100
    Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:40 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#11412

On 08/14/2011 12:38 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:21 PM, rantingrick<rantingrick@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> WRONG: "We are supposed to write clean code but i am not used to that"
>> RIGHT: "We are required to write clean code however i am not accustom
>> to that way of thinking.
>
> Since when are we required to write clean code? If I write unclean
> code (that's code with an undivided hoof, if you're Jewish), or if I
> don't write code at all, will I be kicked from the group?

Any time your code sends Spam or is a resource hog, it would be 
unclean by both Jewish and Muslim anti-porcine standards :)

> I think you need to start a blog, Rick.
>
> You'd be easier to ignore.

+1 QOTW

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11419

On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Aug 14, 12:57 am, rantingrick<rantingr...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> 9. Never use the word "previously" or the phrase "in the past"; just
>> dumb it down with "used to".
> I had forgot to mention one other usage of "used to":
>
> WRONG: "I used to not like indention but know i am very used to it"
> RIGHT: "Previously i lamented forced indentation but i have since
> grown quite accustomed to it"
>
> Also the usage of "supposed to" is rather foolish.
>
> WRONG: "We are supposed to write clean code but i am not used to that"
> RIGHT: "We are required to write clean code however i am not accustom
> to that way of thinking.
>
> Gawd, sometimes i feel like i'm watching an episode of squidbillies
> when i read the this list.
>
>
>
Interesting that when you complain about other's grammatical typos, 
you're so careless with your own.

know -> now
i -> I
accustom -> accustomed
the this -> this

I'm inclined to ignore typos in emails except in the case where the 
intent is to abuse others.

DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11432

On Aug 14, 5:01 pm, Dave Angel <da...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Interesting that when you complain about other's grammatical typos,
> you're so careless with your own.
>
> know -> now
> i -> I
> accustom -> accustomed
> the this -> this
>
> I'm inclined to ignore typos in emails except in the case where the
> intent is to abuse others.

My intent is NOT to abuse, but to enlighten. And you need to look up
the definition of typo because i am not complaining about typos. Typos
are accidents. Even the best of us suffer from accidents.

What i AM complaining about is the adoption of a collectively foolish
consistency. "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
and idiots. I am trying to break these people out of such foolish
loops. You should be thanking me instead of trolling my posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11439

I can't tell which comments are sarcastic

On Aug 14, 2011, at 18:35, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 14, 5:01 pm, Dave Angel <da...@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>> Interesting that when you complain about other's grammatical typos,
>> you're so careless with your own.
>> 
>> know -> now
>> i -> I
>> accustom -> accustomed
>> the this -> this
>> 
>> I'm inclined to ignore typos in emails except in the case where the
>> intent is to abuse others.
> 
> My intent is NOT to abuse, but to enlighten. And you need to look up
> the definition of typo because i am not complaining about typos. Typos
> are accidents. Even the best of us suffer from accidents.
> 
> What i AM complaining about is the adoption of a collectively foolish
> consistency. "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
> and idiots. I am trying to break these people out of such foolish
> loops. You should be thanking me instead of trolling my posts.
> -- 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11487

rantingrick wrote:
> "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
> and idiots.

So when we reach a certain age we're meant to abandon
short, concise and idomatic ways of speaking, and substitute
long words and phrases to make ourselves sound adult and
educated?

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11491

In article <9att2bF710U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> rantingrick wrote:
> > "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
> > and idiots.
> 
> So when we reach a certain age we're meant to abandon
> short, concise and idomatic ways of speaking, and substitute
> long words and phrases to make ourselves sound adult and
> educated?

Yup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11496

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:48 am Gregory Ewing wrote:

> rantingrick wrote:
>> "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
>> and idiots.
> 
> So when we reach a certain age we're meant to abandon
> short, concise and idomatic ways of speaking, and substitute
> long words and phrases to make ourselves sound adult and
> educated?

Say what?

"Used to" isn't idiom. It is grammatical English. Avoidance of "used to" is
a hyper-correction done by people who don't know as much about English as
they think, like "the grammar policeman let Johnny and I off with a
warning", perhaps the most widespread hyper-correction in English.

(If you take Johnny out of the picture, the policeman let I off with a
warning... which is obviously wrong. Whether Johnny was there or not, the
policeman let *me* off with a warning.)

"Used to" is unexceptional English:

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/usedto.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/quiznet/newquiz114.shtml
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_used-to-do.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/usedtotext2.htm


Any-grammatical-errors-are-deliberate-ly y'rs,



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11506

On Aug 15, 7:48 pm, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> > "Used to" and "supposed to" is the verbiage of children
> > and idiots.
>
> So when we reach a certain age we're meant to abandon
> short, concise and idomatic ways of speaking, and substitute
> long words and phrases to make ourselves sound adult and
> educated?

Well that is the idea anyway. Not that we should be overly pedantic
about it of course, however some words need to be cast off before we
leave the "primary school playground" in the name of articulate
communication.

These specific phrases i have pointed out ("used to" and "supposed
to") are a result of a mind choosing the easy way out instead of
putting in the wee bit more effort required to express one's self in
an articulate manner. Also these two phrases are quite prolifically
used within his community (among others), from the BDFL on down. It's
a slippery slope my friend.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11519

rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These specific phrases i have pointed out ("used to" and "supposed
> to") are a result of a mind choosing the easy way out instead of
> putting in the wee bit more effort required to express one's self in
> an articulate manner. Also these two phrases are quite prolifically
> used within his community (among others), from the BDFL on down.

All the way down indeed. Can you pick who said these?

"There are noobs watching and we to provide code that can be used to
teach!"

"And just what *point* an i supposed to be "getting" Stephen?"

"An end user should NEVER EVER have to write glue code so their
"abstraction of choice" can be used to to script an API."

(For bonus points: can you also spot who is bored at work today?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11561

On Aug 16, 2:07 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All the way down indeed. Can you pick who said these?

Obviously your grep skills are superb however you need to brush up on
those reading and comprehension skills a bit.

> "There are noobs watching and we to provide code that can be used to
> teach!"

Yes i said this, however the use of "used to" is proper here. -1

> "And just what *point* an i supposed to be "getting" Stephen?"

Yes i said this, and it "may" seem that you have me on this one
however i believe that Stephen had said something like """you are
"supposed to" blah, blah""" and i retorted with """oh, and just what
*point* am i "supposed to" blah blah blah"""... although i DID forget
to quote "supposed to", still it's a -1.

> "An end user should NEVER EVER have to write glue code so their
> "abstraction of choice" can be used to to script an API."

Yes i said this, however AGAIN the use of "used to" is proper here.
-1.

sorry alex, better luck next time :(. Follows is some homework i have
prepared for you so that you can understand the proper and improper
usage of "used to".

Incorrect past tense usage of "used to":
 """ I "used to" wear wooden shoes """

Incorrect description using "used to":
 """ I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """

Correct usage of "used to":
 """ Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """

For our next assignment we'll be learning about the exploits of Jack
and Jill.

> (For bonus points: can you also spot who is bored at work today?)

Trolling doesn't count as "work" unless you're being paid for it,
however some people might consider you a pro by now!

PS: Does anyone notice how Stephen has fallen off the face the earth?
Where is Stephen i wonder? He was such a vocal nuisance and then he
just disappeared. It seemed like he appeared as strangely as he
disappeared. Well, he's probably where most sock puppets go when they
have no further usage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11592

>Incorrect past tense usage of "used to":
> """ I "used to" wear wooden shoes """

>Incorrect description using "used to":
> """ I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """

>Correct usage of "used to":
> """ Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """

Double you tee eff? Maybe this is a cultural language difference, but I believe all of the above are correct. Well, I am not sure about the middle one but the other two are valid.


http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/usedto/menu.php
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/usedto.html
http://www.5minuteenglish.com/mar20.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/usedtotext.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/used+to
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_used-to-do.htm




Ramit

P.S. Please CC me on any reply.


Ramit Prasad | JPMorgan Chase Investment Bank | Currencies Technology
712 Main Street | Houston, TX 77002
work phone: 713 - 216 - 5423



-----Original Message-----
From: python-list-bounces+ramit.prasad=jpmorgan.com@python.org [mailto:python-list-bounces+ramit.prasad=jpmorgan.com@python.org] On Behalf Of rantingrick
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:06 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member.

On Aug 16, 2:07 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All the way down indeed. Can you pick who said these?

Obviously your grep skills are superb however you need to brush up on
those reading and comprehension skills a bit.

> "There are noobs watching and we to provide code that can be used to
> teach!"

Yes i said this, however the use of "used to" is proper here. -1

> "And just what *point* an i supposed to be "getting" Stephen?"

Yes i said this, and it "may" seem that you have me on this one
however i believe that Stephen had said something like """you are
"supposed to" blah, blah""" and i retorted with """oh, and just what
*point* am i "supposed to" blah blah blah"""... although i DID forget
to quote "supposed to", still it's a -1.

> "An end user should NEVER EVER have to write glue code so their
> "abstraction of choice" can be used to to script an API."

Yes i said this, however AGAIN the use of "used to" is proper here.
-1.

sorry alex, better luck next time :(. Follows is some homework i have
prepared for you so that you can understand the proper and improper
usage of "used to".

For our next assignment we'll be learning about the exploits of Jack
and Jill.

> (For bonus points: can you also spot who is bored at work today?)

Trolling doesn't count as "work" unless you're being paid for it,
however some people might consider you a pro by now!

PS: Does anyone notice how Stephen has fallen off the face the earth?
Where is Stephen i wonder? He was such a vocal nuisance and then he
just disappeared. It seemed like he appeared as strangely as he
disappeared. Well, he's probably where most sock puppets go when they
have no further usage.

-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11596

On 16/08/2011 18:51, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
>> Incorrect past tense usage of "used to":
>> """ I "used to" wear wooden shoes """
>
>> Incorrect description using "used to":
>> """ I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """
>
>> Correct usage of "used to":
>> """ Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """
>
> Double you tee eff? Maybe this is a cultural language difference, but I believe all of the above are correct. Well, I am not sure about the middle one but the other two are valid.
>
Well admittedly English isn't my native language, But indeed all 
sentences seem correct to me.

With the first sentence meaning: in the past I wore wooden shoes, but 
presently I do not.

With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e. 
uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I 
am used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not 
uncomfortable).

I actually can't figure out a way of saying those two sentences more 
concise or correct then it has been given.

But then again I do recognize that these are quite 'Germanic'* ways of 
constructing sentences, as in freely mixing past, present and future to 
indicate that a certain description is restricted to a specific time frame.


* For the lack of a better description, I am not a linguist, but I was 
born in Germany and I am often guilty of mixing times.

Also RR, congratualation to another troll post that turned out quite 
interesting :-)

-- 
mph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11598

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Martin P. Hellwig
<martin.hellwig@butterfly.uk.com> wrote:
> With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e.
> uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I am
> used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not
> uncomfortable).
>

This usage can also be seen in a more archaic form, such as this
example from WS Gilbert's "The Yeomen of the Guard" (which, as it
happens, I'm presently in rehearsal of):

Lieutenant: "I see. I think that manner of thing would be somewhat irritating."
Jack: "At first, sir, perhaps; but use is everything, and you would
come in time to like it."

We would be more inclined to say "You'd get used to it". I don't see
that this usage (heh) should be considered in any way wrong.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11603

On 16/08/2011 19:37, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 18:51, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
>>> Incorrect past tense usage of "used to":
>>> """ I "used to" wear wooden shoes """
>>
>>> Incorrect description using "used to":
>>> """ I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """
>>
>>> Correct usage of "used to":
>>> """ Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """
>>
>> Double you tee eff? Maybe this is a cultural language difference, but
>> I believe all of the above are correct. Well, I am not sure about the
>> middle one but the other two are valid.
>>
> Well admittedly English isn't my native language, But indeed all
> sentences seem correct to me.
>
English _is_ my native language, and I agree with you.

> With the first sentence meaning: in the past I wore wooden shoes, but
> presently I do not.
>
Correct.

> With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e.
> uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I
> am used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not
> uncomfortable).
>
Correct.

> I actually can't figure out a way of saying those two sentences more
> concise or correct then it has been given.
>
> But then again I do recognize that these are quite 'Germanic'* ways of
> constructing sentences, as in freely mixing past, present and future to
> indicate that a certain description is restricted to a specific time frame.
>
>
> * For the lack of a better description, I am not a linguist, but I was
> born in Germany and I am often guilty of mixing times.
>
> Also RR, congratualation to another troll post that turned out quite
> interesting :-)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11611

On Aug 16, 1:37 pm, "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hell...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well admittedly English isn't my native language, But indeed all
> sentences seem correct to me.
>
> With the first sentence meaning: in the past I wore wooden shoes, but
> presently I do not.
>
> With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e.
> uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I
> am used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not
> uncomfortable).
>
> I actually can't figure out a way of saying those two sentences more
> concise or correct then it has been given.

If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following?

ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
CONCISE:  "I wore wooden shoes"
          "I wore wood shoes"
          "I<<wood shoes"

ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
CONCISE:  "I like wearing wooden shoes"
          "I like wooden shoes"
          "I like wood shoes"
          "wood shoes: +1"

However as you can see much of the rich information is missing. Good
communication requires that we use clear and articulate words (and
phrases) that will re-create a similar thought (if not perfect clone
of!) in the mind of your listener[s].

Of course we should never seek to be overly elaborate and ornate in
our speech unless that is the point (As in "poetry, philosophy, and
music" which are elaborate and ornate for good reason!).

Likewise we should never seek to be overtly simplistic and dull with
our speech. (As in "txt speak" which is too simplistic and dull for
intelligent conversation but it has a niche appeal among the children
and idiots)

Think of speaking with articulation as an extension of your body image
GO==GI[1]: You put in too much effort and you become a disgustingly
self gratifying "gorilla" strutting on the stage of bombast-ity
flexing and posing whist your skin glistens from the oils of your own
mental masturbation. Likewise, if you put in too little effort you
become a disgustingly self gratifying couch potato consumed by
lethargy and atherosclerosis completely covered with the crumbs of
your own mental refuse.

It would be wise (my friend) to find a "happy medium".

[1] Garbage Out equals Garbage In(ternally)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11617

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT), rantingrick
<rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:

>If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following?
>
>ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
>CONCISE:  "I wore wooden shoes"

>ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
>CONCISE:  "I like wearing wooden shoes"

>However as you can see much of the rich information is missing. 

Indeed. Neither of your two concise examples has the same meaning of the
originals. 

>Good communication requires that we use clear and articulate words (and
>phrases) that will re-create a similar thought (if not perfect clone of!) 
>in the mind of your listener[s].

Different phrasings of all but the most basic sentences often have subtle
differences of meaning which native speakers intend and understand. 1984 has
been and gone. Shame on you!

DaveM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11619

On Aug 16, 4:55 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT), rantingrick
>
> <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following?
>
> >ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
> >CONCISE:  "I wore wooden shoes"
> >ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
> >CONCISE:  "I like wearing wooden shoes"
> >However as you can see much of the rich information is missing.
>
> Indeed. Neither of your two concise examples has the same meaning of the
> originals.

Really? Are you sure?

------------------------------------------------------------
 ORIGINAL1: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
------------------------------------------------------------

CONCISE_1a: "I wore wooden shoes"
the word "wore" is "past tense" and can be replaced with the "past
tense" phrase of "used to wear" without changing any meaning
whatsoever -- albeit the latter is childish!

CONCISE_1b: "I wore wood shoes"
Wooden = "object made of wood" = "flesh of a tree"
Wood = "the flesh of a tree"
Completely interchangeable!

CONCISE_1c: "I<<wood shoes"
Considering that "I" is an object that has overloaded the left shift
operator with an instance method to append a single argument (in this
case "wood shoes") to instance "I's" feet. Obviously if an object
didn't like wooden shoes it would not have a method that accepts
them...  yeah it's a bit of a stretch, but not so much that it's
impossible to comprehend!

------------------------------------------------------------
 ORIGINAL_2: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes"
------------------------------------------------------------

CONCISE_2a:  "I like wearing wooden shoes"
the word "like" is a positive "present tense" inflection of emotion as
it regards to wooden shoes; as is the phrase "become used to" --
albeit the latter is childish.

CONCISE_2b:  "I like wooden shoes"
If you like wooden shoes it's only natural to assume that you would
wear them.

CONCISE_2c:  "I like wood shoes"
Wood, Wooden, we've been here before.

CONCISE_2d:  "wood shoes: +1"
Since the fact about "wearing" them can go without being said, you get
the picture... although this too is a stretch, but not impossible!

------------------------------------------------------------

> Different phrasings of all but the most basic sentences often have subtle
> differences of meaning which native speakers intend and understand. 1984 has
> been and gone. Shame on you!

Guido himself admitted that hidden descriptors are real. The inception
has begun!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11620

In <d577aa97-84f1-48ac-91fd-4355059cae40@f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com> rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> writes:

> ------------------------------------------------------------
>  ORIGINAL1: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
> ------------------------------------------------------------

> CONCISE_1a: "I wore wooden shoes"

"wore" does not convey the same meaning as "used to wear."

"wore" means you have worn them in the past.

"used to wear" means you have worn them in the past AND don't intend
to do so again.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11626

On Aug 16, 6:25 pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <d577aa97-84f1-48ac-91fd-4355059ca...@f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com> rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >  ORIGINAL1: "I used to wear wooden shoes"
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > CONCISE_1a: "I wore wooden shoes"
>
> "wore" does not convey the same meaning as "used to wear."
>
> "wore" means you have worn them in the past.
>
> "used to wear" means you have worn them in the past AND don't intend
> to do so again.

Actually that assertion is wrong.

Take (in the extreme example) that you were (in the past) forced to
wear a tutu. You did not like wearing the tutu but someone put a gun
to your head, so you did it. Now. If later someone asks you "Have you
ever been forced to wear anything you did not like?" and you replied
"Yes, i wore a tutu [once]", there is no way anyone could extrapolate
from that statement whether or not you would NEVER wear a tutu again.

So the moral is: Just because something happened in the past does not
mean it will happen in the future. The fact remains that "wore" and
"used to wear" both compile down to the same "past tense" event
HOWEVER neither have the capacity to predict future events.

No one can predict the future. Not even YOU can predict whether or not
you will wear a tutu again. You may say you would "never" wear a tutu
again however you can NEVER be sure about that statement without a
time machine, and lots of free time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11636

In <ef0722a3-59ff-4fc3-87a9-e637ce9e2ebd@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> writes:

> > "wore" means you have worn them in the past.
> >
> > "used to wear" means you have worn them in the past AND don't intend
> > to do so again.

> Actually that assertion is wrong.

> No one can predict the future. Not even YOU can predict whether or not

Of course -- that's why the word "intend" was part of my answer.  Did you
overlook that crucial word?

I stand by my assertion that the phrase "I used to do X" carries the
meaning that you have done X in the past but DO NOT INTEND to do so
in the future.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web