Wow. Could you have missed the point any wider? (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you did so intentionally.)
It's not that you disagree with my "assessment of proper english",
it's that you completely misunderstand why some people argue for the importance of adhering to certain standards in writing English — irrespective of what those standards are. Hint: It has nothing to do with "status" or any illusions thereof.
| [reply] |
the importance of adhering to certain standards in writing English — irrespective of what those standards are.
Sorry, but that is just bullshit.
It was perfectly possible to write comprehensible English using the ascii character set for the best part of 50 years prior to Unicode appearing. And it still is!
Indeed, tchrist himself has produced substantial amounts of writing in perfectly comprehensible English using only the ascii charset. Now, I assume that neither you nor he will claim that those writings have suddenly become incomprehensible.
So you introduced the distinctions of "comprehensible" and "proper" English in order to justify tchrist's asinine claim that "Code that assumes that ASCII is good enough for writing English properly is stupid, shortsighted, illiterate, broken, evil, and wrong.", by making your point that we are applying different metrics.
So, unless you are saying that the standard of my written English -- along with that tchrist's pre-Unicode output, and all the authors whose works are available in plain text -- is insufficient to be comprehensible, then you were not saying "irrespective of what those standards are". You cannot re-write history to suit your latest fads and fancies.
Comprehensibility is a testable, objective metric. Properness is an un-testable, subjective, divisive metric. One is good, the other bad.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
So you introduced the distinctions of "comprehensible" and "proper" English in order to justify tchrist's asinine claim...
No, I didn't. I introduced that distinction to help explain how these two factions (consisting of you on the one hand a bunch of reasonable people on the other) can continue to shout "You're wrong!" at each other. Both are right because they are using two different metrics.
And FYI - your repeated attempts to claim insight into other people's mental workings are no longer amusing.
It might be fun if you demonstrated some aptitude for it, but you don't.
| [reply] |