Video from Campbell, CA, USA

"Andrew Tompkins" > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "Andrew Tompkins" > writes:
> >

> >> The part of Jason's post that you removed after 'Oh God. I do NOT
> >> believe you just asked this question.', namely:
> >
> > You have a causality problem. :-) You are complaining about me not
> > reading "provided material" that was only provided *after* I asked
> > the question!
> >
>
> I didn't complain about the initial question. I only complained about
> the fact that you questioned a response when the answer was provided
> for you in the response through a link. One that you chose not to
> read. If you had read it, you probably would have given the 'He
> hasn't used that in group ___ yet' response to Jason that you gave to
> me initially instead.

No, you guys have a causality problem or maybe a tense problem. Some
guy said something like "I don't believe you asked that", and I
explained why I had asked that. Whatever else he added by way of an
explanation was not relevant because I had *asked* the question in
a previous post.


> > Yes, but he used 'analog' to modify 'hyperlink' which is a term
> > whose origins are in Computer Science and related fields.
> >
>
> So what? Although I am an advocate of maintaining context within a
> discussion, that, by necessity, is not required between words and
> modifiers.

So what??? You can't be serious. The word "hyperlink" is a technical
term specific to certain fields, and that sets the context for any
term modifying it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
> "Andrew Tompkins" > writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> "Andrew Tompkins" > writes:
>>>
>
>>>> The part of Jason's post that you removed after 'Oh God. I do
>>>> NOT believe you just asked this question.', namely:
>>>
>>> You have a causality problem. :-) You are complaining about me not
>>> reading "provided material" that was only provided *after* I asked
>>> the question!
>>>

How can he provide an explanation and answer to a question that hasn't
been asked yet?

>>>
>>
>> I didn't complain about the initial question. I only complained
>> about the fact that you questioned a response when the answer was
>> provided for you in the response through a link. One that you
>> chose not to read. If you had read it, you probably would have
>> given the 'He hasn't used that in group ___ yet' response to Jason
>> that you gave to me initially instead.
>
> No, you guys have a causality problem or maybe a tense problem. Some
> guy said something like "I don't believe you asked that", and I
> explained why I had asked that. Whatever else he added by way of
> an explanation was not relevant because I had *asked* the question
> in
> a previous post.
>

Whatever else he added by way of an explanation also happened to
contain the answer to your original question which makes it very
relevant. My problem is that you didn't bother to read it before
firing back a knee-jerk response. Jason's problem was that you were
asking a question that had been asked and thuroughly hashed out a week
or two before, not realizing that the NG set had changed. Two
different problems. No causality.

>
>>> Yes, but he used 'analog' to modify 'hyperlink' which is a term
>>> whose origins are in Computer Science and related fields.
>>>
>>
>> So what? Although I am an advocate of maintaining context within a
>> discussion, that, by necessity, is not required between words and
>> modifiers.
>
> So what??? You can't be serious. The word "hyperlink" is a
> technical term specific to certain fields, and that sets the
> context for any term modifying it.
>

This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by the
modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions. One has
to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other has to do with
similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to information similar to that
lead to by a second hyperlink or can be a similar hyperlink to the
same information, this definition and use is applicable and relevant.
If you have trouble figuring out which definition is being used, ask
about it (which you did). If an explanation or answer is giving, READ
IT. Don't automatically discount it as irrelevant due to situations
outside the explanation or answer.

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

Andrew Tompkins spake thus:

> This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by the
> modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions. One has
> to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other has to do with
> similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to information similar to that
> lead to by a second hyperlink [...]

That's "led", the past participle of lead. Not "lead", as in the heavy
metal. Why does everybody get this wrong?


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> David Nebenzahl > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>Andrew Tompkins spake thus:
>>
>>> This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by the
>>> modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions. One has
>>> to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other has to do with
>>> similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to information similar to that
>>> lead to by a second hyperlink [...]
>>
>>That's "led", the past participle of lead. Not "lead", as in the heavy
>>metal. Why does everybody get this wrong?
>
> Because Led Zeppelin played Heavy Metal music?

That will go over like a lead balloon.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Andrew Tompkins spake thus:
>
>> This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by
>> the modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions.
>> One has to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other
>> has to do with similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to
>> information similar to that lead to by a second hyperlink [...]
>
> That's "led", the past participle of lead. Not "lead", as in the
> heavy metal.
>

I noticed that myself when I read it the next day.

>
> Why does everybody get this wrong?
>

Don't know. Another one of those darn things that the spell checker
won't catch. :-)

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Andrew Tompkins spake thus:
>
>> This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by
>> the modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions. One has
>> to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other has
>> to do with similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to information
>> similar to that lead to by a second hyperlink [...]
>
> That's "led", the past participle of lead. Not "lead", as in the heavy
> metal. Why does everybody get this wrong?

Why does it seem like everybody on the internets says "loose" when they mean
"lose"? I didn't notice this in the pre-internets days.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > Andrew Tompkins spake thus:
> >
> >> This doesn't mean that other contextual meanings cannot be used by
> >> the modifier. The adjective 'analog' has at least 2 definitions. One has
> >> to do with electronics (analog vs. digital). The other has
> >> to do with similarity. Since a hyperlink can lead to information
> >> similar to that lead to by a second hyperlink [...]
> >
> > That's "led", the past participle of lead. Not "lead", as in the heavy
> > metal. Why does everybody get this wrong?
>
> Why does it seem like everybody on the internets says "loose" when they mean
> "lose"? I didn't notice this in the pre-internets days.

Suppose it's to make the loser looser?
Couldn't resist.