Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #55447 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-26 05:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 06:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2014-12-26 15:18 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-26 09:54 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-26 17:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-30 12:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-30 16:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 15:21 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 16:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 18:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-01 06:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 14:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 01:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 03:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 16:22 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 17:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 18:24 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 22:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 14:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 11:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:20 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 16:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 06:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-30 21:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk - 2015-01-04 06:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 00:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-31 01:07 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-01 08:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 10:29 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 09:51 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 12:55 -0600
Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:30 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:37 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:40 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 01:48 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-30 23:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:09 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:43 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:50 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:38 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-06 00:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:59 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 19:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:43 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 14:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 19:38 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:58 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:59 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2015-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 10:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-05 10:01 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 11:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? A Lurker <none@example.com> - 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 13:58 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 22:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 11:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-01-04 15:07 -0400
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 13:01 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 04:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:27 -0700
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:48 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 02:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 04:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:42 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:57 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 01:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:05 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-03 17:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 14:39 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-03 13:47 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:16 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-04 15:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-01-12 15:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m98g0q$bhd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56282 |
On 15/01/15 10:06, Richard Heathfield wrote: > David Brown wrote: > >> On 14/01/15 23:54, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 01/14/2015 05:03 PM, Greg Martin wrote: >>>> On 2015-01-08, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You have (like most people) completely missed the point of "the >>>>>> exception proves the rule". The phrase comes from an older time, in >>>>>> which the word "prove" (or its ancestor which has morphed into >>>>>> "prove") meant much the same as the modern Norwegian verb "å prove", >>>>>> or "to >>>>>> test". The what the phrase /really/ meant was that the exception >>>>>> /tests/ the rule, and finds it wanting - i.e., it is not a rule at >>>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> I'm afraid that professional etymologists agree that that one's a myth, >>>>> and Richard is quite correct. See, for example, >>>>> <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm>. >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>> >>>> Aside from being a clear exposition there doesn't seem to be anything on >>>> that page providing scholarly attribution that would make it the proof >>>> that rules the exception (bad attempt at a joke I know). It seems to >>>> make sense but is there a reason to accept it over Norwegian argument? >>> >>> A search for the latin phrase mentioned in that article leads to >>> Wikipedia (where else!) which provides two citations >>> >>> The first is for <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html>, >>> which in turn provides a link to the full latin text of Cicero's >>> argument. >>> >>> The second is for >>> <http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html>, >>> which >>> in turn provides a scholarly citation of "Giovanni Torriano's Piazza >>> universale di proverbi italiani, or A Common Place of Italian Proverbs, >>> 1666". >>> >>> These citations prove only the existence of the concept, rather than >>> proving that the English phrase was originally intended to convey that >>> concept, which would be much harder to prove. >>> >> >> I suppose Richard's actual claim - > > (Presumably you are referring to Richard Bos here.) Yes. > >> which was that "professional >> etymologists agree that [the Norwegian argument] is a myth" is easier to >> prove, even if it is hard to be sure of the actual origin of the phrase. >> >> Cicero's argument is very different from the modern idiom - he says that >> the exception proves the /existence/ of a rule, while the modern idiom >> says that the exception proves the /validity/ of the rule. Cicero's >> version makes logical sense, whereas the modern version does not. > > The modern idiom can be interpreted in at least three ways: > > 1) the exception, as you so aptly put it, proves the existence of a rule; > 2) the exception tests the rule (the word "prove" has not lost its meaning > of "test" for at least some of us); > 3) the exception proves the validity of the rule. > > 1 and 2 make sense. 3 does not. Although 3 is indeed the interpretation that > many people use nowadays, this does not mean that 1 and 2 are not also used. > Indeed, I use both of them (but never 3). The fact that some - many - > perhaps even most - people get it wrong does not mean that there's anything > wrong with the idiom. You can't chuck a brick in this newsgroup, let alone > in Real Life, without hitting at least half a dozen examples of Most People > Getting It Wrong. Fair enough - though I would not use (2) because so many people would misinterpret it. > >> >> It is certainly reasonable to argue that the modern idiom has come from >> a translated and abbreviated version of the Latin idiom. But I believe >> it is also reasonable to argue that it comes from an older meaning of >> "to prove", which certainly had the meaning of "to test or evaluate" in >> Middle English (apparently it came from Old French rather than Old Norse). > > Yes. Either will do. The original point at issue in this thread was not > "which of the at least two sensible interpretations is correct", but the > claim that the saying makes no sense whatsoever, a claim that is clearly at > odds with reality. > Well, taking a literal interpretation of the saying, using the most common modern English meaning of "prove", gives version (3) from your list above. And we all agree that this makes no sense. I agree that the saying /could/ be interpreted as either (1) or (2), but I think they are odd interpretations that could only come from using historical knowledge to force sense into the saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iYPtw.70523$kH2.7134@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #56296 |
David Brown wrote: > On 15/01/15 10:06, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> David Brown wrote: >> <snip> >>> It is certainly reasonable to argue that the modern idiom has come from >>> a translated and abbreviated version of the Latin idiom. But I believe >>> it is also reasonable to argue that it comes from an older meaning of >>> "to prove", which certainly had the meaning of "to test or evaluate" in >>> Middle English (apparently it came from Old French rather than Old >>> Norse). >> >> Yes. Either will do. The original point at issue in this thread was not >> "which of the at least two sensible interpretations is correct", but the >> claim that the saying makes no sense whatsoever, a claim that is clearly >> at odds with reality. >> > > Well, taking a literal interpretation of the saying, using the most > common modern English meaning of "prove", gives version (3) from your > list above. And we all agree that this makes no sense. I agree that > the saying /could/ be interpreted as either (1) or (2), but I think they > are odd interpretations that could only come from using historical > knowledge to force sense into the saying. And I think it is (3) that is the odd interpretation, since it makes no sense whatsoever. As for forcing sense into the saying, the sense was already there. The fact that some people misunderstand and misuse the phrase does not change anything about what the phrase actually means. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e351c038-5dac-4736-ae70-8c60aeb5424a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56300 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:15:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > And I think it is (3) that is the odd interpretation, since it makes no > sense whatsoever. As for forcing sense into the saying, the sense was > already there. The fact that some people misunderstand and misuse the phrase > does not change anything about what the phrase actually means. > It does actually. Let's say we've got a rule that all swans are white. We've never seen a counter-example. But that's all we can say. Now let's say someone produces a black swan. Well the fist thing we'll do is cross it with a white. Do we get black cygnets, white ones, grey ones, or a mixture of black and white? Let's say they're all white. Now we're beginning to understand why you never see black swans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <UIRtw.67591$Wk7.48925@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #56301 |
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:15:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> And I think it is (3) that is the odd interpretation, since it makes no
>> sense whatsoever. As for forcing sense into the saying, the sense was
>> already there. The fact that some people misunderstand and misuse the
>> phrase does not change anything about what the phrase actually means.
>>
> It does actually.
> Let's say we've got a rule that all swans are white. We've never seen a
> counter-example. But that's all we can say.
We've clearly never met Cygnus atratus. Okay. So we have this rule.
> Now let's say someone produces a black swan.
Okay.
> Well the fist thing we'll do
> is cross it with a white.
Because?
> Do we get black cygnets, white ones, grey ones,
> or a mixture of black and white? Let's say they're all white. Now we're
> beginning to understand why you never see black swans.
Oh, but we do. Well, some people do. You see, there are such things as black
swans.
Anyway, we had this rule - all swans are white - and a counter-example was
produced. This tests ("proves") the rule. Is the black swan truly a counter-
example? If so, the rule fails the test, and can no longer be considered an
adequate rule. At best, it is a rule of thumb.
If, however, we see a notice that reads "Feeding the swans is forbidden on
Saturdays", we may confidently feed them on Sundays, because the exception
(stated on the notice) has proved that the general rule ("except when
excepted, you may feed the swans", which is not stated explicitly on the
notice) exists.
The one thing we /can't/ say with any real conviction is that the existence
of a black swan proves that all swans are white.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c11e7361-6c62-4925-9f5f-788989d403a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56305 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 5:15:59 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Anyway, we had this rule - all swans are white - and a counter-example was
> produced. This tests ("proves") the rule. Is the black swan truly a counter-
> example? If so, the rule fails the test, and can no longer be considered an
> adequate rule. At best, it is a rule of thumb.
>
I write my comment here because there are tooo many replies on this "rule/
exception" thing.
It's just a matter of words.
If there is a rule, and we see something that doesn't follow that rule, it
must be an exception. If there is no rule, we can't say that it's an
exception: it's an exception to what? :)
In my entire life, I never heard that phrase used in a formal setting,
but only just informally in chit-chats with a funny accent.
I really don't see why someone would want to use it as a.. rule? :)
Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54B7F253.4070100@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #56306 |
On 01/15/2015 11:35 AM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: ... > I write my comment here because there are tooo many replies on this "rule/ > exception" thing. > > It's just a matter of words. > If there is a rule, and we see something that doesn't follow that rule, it > must be an exception. If there is no rule, we can't say that it's an > exception: it's an exception to what? :) > > In my entire life, I never heard that phrase used in a formal setting, > but only just informally in chit-chats with a funny accent. > I really don't see why someone would want to use it as a.. rule? :) In normal usage, the idiom is used to give a false appearance of rationality to an attempt to deny that there's anything wrong with a rule, despite the fact that are specifics case where that rule doesn't work. Anytime that someone is sufficiently committed to the truth of a general rule that they don't care about the fact that there's evidence that it's wrong, they have reason to be thankful for this idiom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m99do3$cnq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56305 |
On 15/01/15 17:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:15:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> And I think it is (3) that is the odd interpretation, since it makes no
>>> sense whatsoever. As for forcing sense into the saying, the sense was
>>> already there. The fact that some people misunderstand and misuse the
>>> phrase does not change anything about what the phrase actually means.
>>>
>> It does actually.
>> Let's say we've got a rule that all swans are white. We've never seen a
>> counter-example. But that's all we can say.
>
> We've clearly never met Cygnus atratus. Okay. So we have this rule.
>
>> Now let's say someone produces a black swan.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Well the fist thing we'll do
>> is cross it with a white.
>
> Because?
>
>> Do we get black cygnets, white ones, grey ones,
>> or a mixture of black and white? Let's say they're all white. Now we're
>> beginning to understand why you never see black swans.
>
> Oh, but we do. Well, some people do. You see, there are such things as black
> swans.
>
> Anyway, we had this rule - all swans are white - and a counter-example was
> produced. This tests ("proves") the rule. Is the black swan truly a counter-
> example? If so, the rule fails the test, and can no longer be considered an
> adequate rule. At best, it is a rule of thumb.
>
> If, however, we see a notice that reads "Feeding the swans is forbidden on
> Saturdays", we may confidently feed them on Sundays, because the exception
> (stated on the notice) has proved that the general rule ("except when
> excepted, you may feed the swans", which is not stated explicitly on the
> notice) exists.
Actually, I don't think you /can/ say that the existence of the
exception /proves/ the existence of the general rule - at best, you
might say it /implies/ the existence of the rule. The more specific the
exception, the stronger the implication, but it is still not close to
being "proof". A "no fishing" sign would not be taken as implying a
general rule allowing lobster pots, collecting crabs, farming shellfish
or other related activity - even though the situation is logically the
same as your example. A sign saying "no fishing for trout" gives a much
stronger implication that other types of fishing are allowed - but it is
not logical proof.
(This does not change the explanation that the idiom comes from Cicero's
saying - but perhaps Cicero's argument was not as strong as we thought.)
>
> The one thing we /can't/ say with any real conviction is that the existence
> of a black swan proves that all swans are white.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmbnnjd.3ps.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56301 |
On Thu, 2015-01-15, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:15:52 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> And I think it is (3) that is the odd interpretation, since it makes no >> sense whatsoever. As for forcing sense into the saying, the sense was >> already there. The fact that some people misunderstand and misuse the phrase >> does not change anything about what the phrase actually means. >> > It does actually. > Let's say we've got a rule that all swans are white. We've never seen a counter-example. > But that's all we can say. > Now let's say someone produces a black swan. Well the fist thing we'll do is cross it > with a white. Do we get black cygnets, white ones, grey ones, or a mixture of black > and white? Actually, normal Mute Swans have gray cygnets. There's a minority where they are white: around here we call them "Holländare" because this phenotype is supposedly more common in the Netherlands. Also I'm not sure the Australian Black Swan can interbreed with our plain Mute Swans. None of this, of course, detracts anything from your interesting argument. Please carry on! /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54bcc59c.375343@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #56425 |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > Actually, normal Mute Swans have gray cygnets. There's a minority > where they are white: around here we call them "Holländare" because > this phenotype is supposedly more common in the Netherlands. Interesting; I've never seen any cygnets in any other upholstering than grey. > Also I'm not sure the Australian Black Swan can interbreed with our > plain Mute Swans. I doubt it. Politically incorrect but Mendelianly appropriate limerick: There was a young lady named Starkey, Who had an affair with a darkie. The results of her sins Were quadruplets, not twins: One black, and one white, and two khaki. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m98hj8$hhv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56282 |
On 01/15/2015 04:06 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > The modern idiom can be interpreted in at least three ways: > > 1) the exception, as you so aptly put it, proves the existence of a rule; > 2) the exception tests the rule (the word "prove" has not lost its meaning > of "test" for at least some of us); > 3) the exception proves the validity of the rule. > > 1 and 2 make sense. 3 does not. Although 3 is indeed the interpretation that > many people use nowadays, this does not mean that 1 and 2 are not also used. > Indeed, I use both of them (but never 3). The fact that some - many - > perhaps even most - people get it wrong does not mean that there's anything > wrong with the idiom. ... I never use the idiom, and that's because I think that there's something very wrong with the it. #3 is the only reasonable interpretation of the words of the idiom, and as you correctly point out, #3 doesn't make any sense. It's also overwhelmingly what most people mean when they use it. #2 relies on an alternate meaning for "test" which is pretty much obsolete (your comments to the contrary notwithstanding), and would never ordinarily come to mind in such a context. #1 doesn't fit the actual words of the idiom. As a result of this thread, I might someday actually use the phrase "the exception proves the existence of a rule", if an appropriate situation comes up (which seems pretty unlikely), but I can't imagine ever using the idiom itself. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln61c8q8d1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #56282 |
Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
[...]
> The modern idiom can be interpreted in at least three ways:
>
> 1) the exception, as you so aptly put it, proves the existence of a rule;
> 2) the exception tests the rule (the word "prove" has not lost its meaning
> of "test" for at least some of us);
> 3) the exception proves the validity of the rule.
>
> 1 and 2 make sense. 3 does not. Although 3 is indeed the interpretation that
> many people use nowadays, this does not mean that 1 and 2 are not also used.
> Indeed, I use both of them (but never 3). The fact that some - many -
> perhaps even most - people get it wrong does not mean that there's anything
> wrong with the idiom. You can't chuck a brick in this newsgroup, let alone
> in Real Life, without hitting at least half a dozen examples of Most People
> Getting It Wrong.
[...]
The real problem is that "The exception proves the rule" is just
a poor translation of the original expression.
Assuming sense 1, the Latin expression *should* have been translated
as something like "The exception proves the existence of the rule".
I speculate that when the English phrase "The exception proves the
rule" was first popular, it was used mostly by educated people who
knew Latin, and understood the actual meaning. Since then, the
phrase spread to people who don't have the background to understand
its original meaning. As the English language evolved, the wording
remained static.
Assuming sense 2 (which IMHO is an after-the-fact rationalization,
perhaps invented by someone who knew that the saying doesn't make
sense but didn't know the background), it's again a case of the
wording remaining static while the language changed. The meaning of
"prove" as "test" remains mostly in the phrase "proving ground".
Sense 3, of course, is simply nonsense, sometimes accepted on
the basis that such a widely known saying *must* make sense.
(That's not entirely invalid reasoning; it probably wouldn't have
become a popular expression if it made no sense at all. The error
is in failing to understand *how* it makes sense.)
We have a similar situation with the phrase "begging the question",
which really means assuming the conclusion of an argument, but is
often used to mean *raising* a question. It's a mistranslation of
the Latin phrase "petitio principii", "assuming the initial point".
The Wikipedia article on "Begging the question" explains the history.
That's not as bad, though, since raising a question actually
makes sense.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec40962b-2e0d-40a7-b1b5-3b6ed5b17e71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56308 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:09:09 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes: > [...] > > The modern idiom can be interpreted in at least three ways: > > > > 1) the exception, as you so aptly put it, proves the existence of a rule; > > 2) the exception tests the rule (the word "prove" has not lost its meaning > > of "test" for at least some of us); > > 3) the exception proves the validity of the rule. > > > > 1 and 2 make sense. 3 does not. Although 3 is indeed the interpretation that > > many people use nowadays, this does not mean that 1 and 2 are not also used. > > Indeed, I use both of them (but never 3). The fact that some - many - > > perhaps even most - people get it wrong does not mean that there's anything > > wrong with the idiom. You can't chuck a brick in this newsgroup, let alone > > in Real Life, without hitting at least half a dozen examples of Most People > > Getting It Wrong. > [...] > > The real problem is that "The exception proves the rule" is just > a poor translation of the original expression. > > Assuming sense 1, the Latin expression *should* have been translated > as something like "The exception proves the existence of the rule". > I speculate that when the English phrase "The exception proves the > rule" was first popular, it was used mostly by educated people who > knew Latin, and understood the actual meaning. Since then, the > phrase spread to people who don't have the background to understand > its original meaning. As the English language evolved, the wording > remained static. > > Assuming sense 2 (which IMHO is an after-the-fact rationalization, > perhaps invented by someone who knew that the saying doesn't make > sense but didn't know the background), it's again a case of the > wording remaining static while the language changed. The meaning of > "prove" as "test" remains mostly in the phrase "proving ground". > > Sense 3, of course, is simply nonsense, sometimes accepted on > the basis that such a widely known saying *must* make sense. > (That's not entirely invalid reasoning; it probably wouldn't have > become a popular expression if it made no sense at all. The error > is in failing to understand *how* it makes sense.) > > We have a similar situation with the phrase "begging the question", > which really means assuming the conclusion of an argument, but is > often used to mean *raising* a question. It's a mistranslation of > the Latin phrase "petitio principii", "assuming the initial point". > The Wikipedia article on "Begging the question" explains the history. > That's not as bad, though, since raising a question actually > makes sense. > Ok, being Italian I urge to show my knowledge in latin an history :) There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant that anything else was allowed. And still, as I said before, in Italian (which I think is the closest language to latin at present) the meaning of the phrase is the one of the "existence" of the rule. M2C, Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54B81B31.8080006@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #56313 |
On 01/15/2015 02:49 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:09:09 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: ... > There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > that anything else was allowed. > > And still, as I said before, in Italian (which I think is the closest > language to latin at present) the meaning of the phrase is the one of > the "existence" of the rule. How would you express, in either latin or Italian, the contra-factual assertion normally meant by this idiom: "The exception proves [the validity of] the rule"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2c56b7d-8ec1-4d95-91a8-32431e666b35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56314 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 8:55:39 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 01/15/2015 02:49 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:09:09 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > ... > > There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > > casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > > thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > > that anything else was allowed. > > > > And still, as I said before, in Italian (which I think is the closest > > language to latin at present) the meaning of the phrase is the one of > > the "existence" of the rule. > > How would you express, in either latin or Italian, the contra-factual > assertion normally meant by this idiom: "The exception proves [the > validity of] the rule"? Simply, in italian the proverb it's "l'eccezione conferma la regola", which can be literally translated to "the exception confirms the rule". I don't know where the "proves" thing comes from (but I know that somebody else will find the correct.. etymology?), but to me to actual meaning is pretty clear. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln1tmvrdza.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #56313 |
fmassei@gmail.com writes:
> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:09:09 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> The real problem is that "The exception proves the rule" is just
>> a poor translation of the original expression.
>>
>> Assuming sense 1, the Latin expression *should* have been translated
>> as something like "The exception proves the existence of the rule".
>> I speculate that when the English phrase "The exception proves the
>> rule" was first popular, it was used mostly by educated people who
>> knew Latin, and understood the actual meaning. Since then, the
>> phrase spread to people who don't have the background to understand
>> its original meaning. As the English language evolved, the wording
>> remained static.
[...]
>
> Ok, being Italian I urge to show my knowledge in latin an history :)
>
> There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in
> casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one
> thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant
> that anything else was allowed.
How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than
2000 years ago?
> And still, as I said before, in Italian (which I think is the closest
> language to latin at present) the meaning of the phrase is the one of
> the "existence" of the rule.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bfe22a7-fc58-47bb-b970-26f9dc319bb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56316 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > fmassei@gmail.com writes: > > > > There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > > casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > > thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > > that anything else was allowed. > > How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than > 2000 years ago? > Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to possible interpretations) Laws, after 1000 thousand years, are old laws (and, as such, precise enough to not leave space to many discussions). This is why (maybe being wrongs) I preferred, explaining my point, to cite the latter instead of the former. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54B829EB.2020001@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #56317 |
On 01/15/2015 03:27 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> fmassei@gmail.com writes: >>> >>> There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in >>> casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one >>> thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant >>> that anything else was allowed. >> >> How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than >> 2000 years ago? >> > > Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to > possible interpretations) "1000 thousand years"? How far back do you think recorded human history goes? 10 thousand years is about the upper limit. Cicero was only 2 thousand years ago. > Laws, after 1000 thousand years, are old laws (and, as such, precise enough > to not leave space to many discussions). The Cicero citation <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html> was an argument presented in court, and is the ultimate source of the legal principle you cite. See also <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0020:text=Balb.>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21825a25-ecb2-488f-85fc-3036191cf5cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56320 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 01/15/2015 03:27 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> fmassei@gmail.com writes: > >>> > >>> There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > >>> casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > >>> thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > >>> that anything else was allowed. > >> > >> How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than > >> 2000 years ago? > >> > > > > Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to > > possible interpretations) > > "1000 thousand years"? How far back do you think recorded human history > goes? 10 thousand years is about the upper limit. Cicero was only 2 > thousand years ago. > I said 1K as an hypothetical time shift between him and the lawyers I was referring to. > > Laws, after 1000 thousand years, are old laws (and, as such, precise enough > > to not leave space to many discussions). > > The Cicero citation > <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html> was an argument > presented in court, and is the ultimate source of the legal principle > you cite. See also > <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0020:text=Balb.> > I think I know enough of roman rhetoric to take it for what it's worth: an impressive application of the human language, but rarely as an example of logic and clearness of thoughts. As I understood the theme of this branch of the thread, we are not discussing if Cicero was a logic expert or not: yes, he was, of course. But first of all he was a lawyer (and later a writer - and you cannot read what we wrote without his background in mind); we are trying to find out (in a c.l.* NG, maybe we were not the best choice) what the origin of the way of saying was, and how it changed during the millennia. I wrote you how it is in Italy now, which, due to the similarity of the Italian language to the original language, I think it's worth a shot. And I give you a medieval law to backup the whole thing. If I'm missing the point just tell me. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4642462f-c567-4c18-874f-0701a9c6d49f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56321 |
"the exception is the rule" Maybe in the sense that when you see that there are a few exceptions then the rule is fine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fcda750-1240-4c50-8dae-b0567085ace7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56322 |
"the exception make the rule" Maybe in the sense that when you see that there are a few exceptions then the rule is fine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web