Hi dear Ken,
my answer to you was certainly not meant as a personal attack, and I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to launch any personal attack against you. So I'm really sorry if you perceived it as an attack. And I certainly did not want to be arrogant either, I'm really sorry again if I appeared to be.
I really did not presume to instruct you to do anything, nor to teach any lesson. My only factual point was that "whole numbers" may not mean exactly the same thing to everyone, especially to people whose mother tongue is not English. At least, the Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese people (and probably a number of others) use the literal translation of "whole number" into their own language to render the English (or Latin) word "integer," including in highly technical computer science writings.
I am really sorry if my post was poorly worded, I did not think it was, but, you know, English is not my mother tongue, so I may goof from time to time despite my best efforts. | [reply] |
G'day Laurent,
Thankyou for your response: it is appreciated.
As I originally said: "I won't automatically assume this was intended as a personal attack"
and "hoping your post was simply poorly worded".
I'm glad to see that's the case.
Let's put this behind us and continue amicably into the future.
| [reply] |
Wow. The only arrogance I see here is yours.
Your "not-a-nit-pick" nit-pick: "e.g. -5 is a whole number;" is -- in many non-English natural language settings, and many strictly mathematical settings -- entirely WRONG! And all the dressing you wrapped around it, presumptive, unnecessary fluff; and your solution: stupidly inefficient and pointlessly complex.
Laurent's oh-so-gentle reminder that your language, viewpoint and understanding, may differ from that of the OPs; was as polite as it is possible to be, whilst pointing out to a stranger, that they just might be being myopic, to the point of coming close to xenophobic.
And that was just your arrogance in your original reply to the OP; your reply to Laurent is in another class entirely. The latter is quite simply the worst case of attempted misdirection-by-attacking-the-author-of-the-message-because-you-have-no-legitimate-answer-to-and-are-embarrassed-by-the-message as I've seen here in a long time.
As for your exposition of what you "find acceptable", it is the very definition of that which you decry as unacceptable. It wouldn't be out of place in a tweet by the MOTUS.
I'm hoping your latter reply was an uncharacteristic aberration and you'll re-read Laurent's post when in a less defensive mood and correct it accordingly.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Suck that fhit
| [reply] |
No, my reply was quite polite.
"... pointing out to a stranger ..."
No, that's wrong.
I started my post with "We've always got along well in the past, ...", which should have provided a hint.
Beyond public posts and private message discussions here,
I've also provided Laurent
with material for the French site https://perl.developpez.com/ which he's involved with.
So, no, not strangers.
Other stuff, such as this talk of myopia and xenophobia which first appeared in your post, I'll be ignoring.
| [reply] |