A metaphor of signs
Snit
-----
The problem at Penn Station is not that designers skipped
these steps. It's that three sets of designers did them three
times. ... The fundamental wayfinding problem at Penn
Station lies in the fact that each of these entities manages
its own signs, usually without consulting the others. As a
result, the station essentially has three different systems
of signage.
This is a crazy way to manage information at the biggest
railway station in the country. The user experiences Penn
Station as one place. But the current system assumes that the
user experiences the station as three distinct spaces.
...
Each of these three sign systems has strengths and
weaknesses. But the problems with Penn Station are not,
fundamentally, design problems. They're power problems. If
the authority in Penn Station were centralized�or if Amtrak
stepped up to its role as landlord and decided to address the
station's wayfinding problems with a unified sign system�the
place could be made less confusing. Mike Gallagher, Amtrak's
Superintendent of Passenger Services for Penn, pointed out
via e-mail that while each tenant manages its own signs, Penn
has "ample signage throughout the station, directing
passengers to the area of the station they are looking to
travel from." But having lots of signs is a pale substitute
for having signs that really speak to one another.
Penn Station is a remarkably challenging environment for
wayfinding. But it's a useful place to examine, because it
highlights the single most crucial thing a wayfinding
designer must do: think about the user and understand how he
will perceive a space. When signs are good, and you pay
attention to them, you can sense the level of thought that
went into them. Someone, somewhere, anticipated the journey
you are on, and the information you would need. At Penn
Station as a whole, it's no one's job to think about how
you'll get where you're going. And you can tell.
-----
Multiple user interfaces... perhaps all good, but not consistent with one
another. And it makes for a mess.
If you can understand the problem with Penn Station signage, you can likely
understand more about the problems with the UIs of the various desktop Linux
distros. So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better?
What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
such distros better?
Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way to try to find
where the analogy fails instead of trying to understand and learn from it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
Maybe you can write to whomever controls the signs at Penn Station and
relay your concerns.
> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu
> and PCLOS and other such distros better?
Maybe you can write to the organizations that manage KDE, Gnome, XFCE,
etc and offer suggestion to how they can improve their products. But
then, it seems there are a lot of people (depending on how you define "a
lot") that have a positive attitude regarding the progress of those
systems.
>
> Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way to try to
> find where the analogy fails instead of trying to understand and learn
> from it.
--
Rick
Snit
4:58 AM:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> <http://www.slate.com/id/2246104/>
>> -----
>> The problem at Penn Station is not that designers skipped these
>> steps. It's that three sets of designers did them three times. ...
>> The fundamental wayfinding problem at Penn Station lies in the fact
>> that each of these entities manages its own signs, usually without
>> consulting the others. As a result, the station essentially has
>> three different systems of signage.
>>
>> This is a crazy way to manage information at the biggest railway
>> station in the country. The user experiences Penn Station as one
>> place. But the current system assumes that the user experiences the
>> station as three distinct spaces. ...
>> Each of these three sign systems has strengths and weaknesses. But
>> the problems with Penn Station are not, fundamentally, design
>> problems. They're power problems. If the authority in Penn Station
>> were centralized?or if Amtrak stepped up to its role as landlord and
>> decided to address the station's wayfinding problems with a unified
>> sign system?the place could be made less confusing. Mike Gallagher,
>> Amtrak's Superintendent of Passenger Services for Penn, pointed out
>> via e-mail that while each tenant manages its own signs, Penn has
>> "ample signage throughout the station, directing passengers to the
>> area of the station they are looking to travel from." But having
>> lots of signs is a pale substitute for having signs that really
>> speak to one another.
>>
>> Penn Station is a remarkably challenging environment for wayfinding.
>> But it's a useful place to examine, because it highlights the single
>> most crucial thing a wayfinding designer must do: think about the
>> user and understand how he will perceive a space. When signs are
>> good, and you pay attention to them, you can sense the level of
>> thought that went into them. Someone, somewhere, anticipated the
>> journey you are on, and the information you would need. At Penn
>> Station as a whole, it's no one's job to think about how you'll get
>> where you're going. And you can tell. -----
>>
>> Multiple user interfaces... perhaps all good, but not consistent with
>> one another. And it makes for a mess.
>>
>> If you can understand the problem with Penn Station signage, you can
>> likely understand more about the problems with the UIs of the various
>> desktop Linux distros. So what could be done to make the Penn Station
>> signage better?
>
> Maybe you can write to whomever controls the signs at Penn Station and
> relay your concerns.
You think they do not know? Did you read the article? Even skim it?
>> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu
>> and PCLOS and other such distros better?
>
> Maybe you can write to the organizations that manage KDE, Gnome, XFCE,
> etc and offer suggestion to how they can improve their products. But
> then, it seems there are a lot of people (depending on how you define "a
> lot") that have a positive attitude regarding the progress of those
> systems.
I did not expect you to have any ideas. And you do not. No surprise. What
would have been a shock would be if you *did* have relevant ideas.
>> Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way to try to
>> find where the analogy fails instead of trying to understand and learn
>> from it.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> <http://www.slate.com/id/2246104/>
>> -----
>> The problem at Penn Station is not that designers skipped these
>> steps. It's that three sets of designers did them three times. ...
>> The fundamental wayfinding problem at Penn Station lies in the fact
So what happens when you go to Maryland? Or London?
[deletia]
It's kind of like going from Windows to a Mac.
--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.
cc
> So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better?
"They're power problems. If the authority in Penn Station were
centralized or if Amtrak stepped up to its role as landlord and
decided to address the station's wayfinding problems with a unified
sign system the place could be made less confusing."
> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
> such distros better?
Who plays the role of Amtrak in the case of the distros? Who has the
power and authority?
Snit
1f5854e9-b37c-496f...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
11:19 AM:
Part of the challenge with desktop Linux distos is, by the very nature of
the OSS ecosystem, there is no power / authority... this is pretty darn
common knowledge in these parts, no?
So the question becomes, assuming you understand the problem, if you have
ideas on how it can be resolved with desktop Linux distros *without* having
any such overriding authority.
It is a huge challenge for all desktop distros... and one which nobody seems
to have a good answer.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
Wasn't it your expectation that this 'issue' would solve itself over
time?
--
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
~ Benjamin Franklin
cc
> cc stated in post
> 1f5854e9-b37c-496f-8ecf-eb4f0deb6...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
> 11:19 AM:
>
> > On Mar 4, 12:49 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better?
>
> > "They're power problems. If the authority in Penn Station were
> > centralized or if Amtrak stepped up to its role as landlord and
> > decided to address the station's wayfinding problems with a unified
> > sign system the place could be made less confusing."
>
> >> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
> >> such distros better?
>
> > Who plays the role of Amtrak in the case of the distros? Who has the
> > power and authority?
>
> Part of the challenge with desktop Linux distos is, by the very nature of
> the OSS ecosystem, there is no power / authority... this is pretty darn
> common knowledge in these parts, no?
>
> So the question becomes, assuming you understand the problem, if you have
> ideas on how it can be resolved with desktop Linux distros *without* having
> any such overriding authority.
You're probably right, I'm too dumb to understand a simple analogy.
Can you post references to dozens of articles you haven't read but
pretend to have read, a reference to a short paper (referring to the
subject of that paper with a term you made up) that has nothing to do
with this problem, and then flip-flop on your views? That should clear
everything up, thanks.
> It is a huge challenge for all desktop distros... and one which nobody seems
> to have a good answer.
>
The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
never get resolved. I'm not sure your analogy even matters. Getting
uniformity between KDE and gnome is not the same as getting uniformity
across KDE or gnome individually. Do you have a problem with the UI
differences between XP, Vista and Windows 7? Should you? I certainly
don't think so.
Snit
c499e128-6886-4040...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
1:33 PM:
> On Mar 4, 1:58�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 1f5854e9-b37c-496f-8ecf-eb4f0deb6...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
>> 11:19 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 12:49�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better?
>>
>>> "They're power problems. If the authority in Penn Station were
>>> centralized or if Amtrak stepped up to its role as landlord and
>>> decided to address the station's wayfinding problems with a unified
>>> sign system the place could be made less confusing."
>>
>>>> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
>>>> such distros better?
>>
>>> Who plays the role of Amtrak in the case of the distros? Who has the
>>> power and authority?
>>
>> Part of the challenge with desktop Linux distos is, by the very nature of
>> the OSS ecosystem, there is no power / authority... this is pretty darn
>> common knowledge in these parts, no?
>>
>> So the question becomes, assuming you understand the problem, if you have
>> ideas on how it can be resolved with desktop Linux distros *without* having
>> any such overriding authority.
>
> You're probably right, I'm too dumb to understand a simple analogy.
Ok. Why not work on your comprehension level?
...
>> It is a huge challenge for all desktop distros... and one which nobody seems
>> to have a good answer.
>>
>
> The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
> collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
> never get resolved.
It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to *some
extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
> I'm not sure your analogy even matters.
Of course - you admitted you do not understand it. Given that, how could
you be sure?
> Getting uniformity between KDE and gnome is not the same as getting uniformity
> across KDE or gnome individually. Do you have a problem with the UI
> differences between XP, Vista and Windows 7? Should you? I certainly don't
> think so.
It is a similar problem with their UIs are all on one system.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
It will almost surely continue to get better over time - no reason to think
the trend will reverse. But there is no current answer...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 1:33 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 1f5854e9-b37c-496f-8ecf-eb4f0deb6...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
> >> 11:19 AM:
>
> >>> On Mar 4, 12:49 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better?
>
> >>> "They're power problems. If the authority in Penn Station were
> >>> centralized or if Amtrak stepped up to its role as landlord and
> >>> decided to address the station's wayfinding problems with a unified
> >>> sign system the place could be made less confusing."
>
> >>>> What can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
> >>>> such distros better?
>
> >>> Who plays the role of Amtrak in the case of the distros? Who has the
> >>> power and authority?
>
> >> Part of the challenge with desktop Linux distos is, by the very nature of
> >> the OSS ecosystem, there is no power / authority... this is pretty darn
> >> common knowledge in these parts, no?
>
> >> So the question becomes, assuming you understand the problem, if you have
> >> ideas on how it can be resolved with desktop Linux distros *without* having
> >> any such overriding authority.
>
[actual post from me, not selective snipping a la Peter Kohlmann]
You're probably right, I'm too dumb to understand a simple analogy.
Can you post references to dozens of articles you haven't read but
pretend to have read, a reference to a short paper (referring to the
subject of that paper with a term you made up) that has nothing to do
with this problem, and then flip-flop on your views? That should clear
everything up, thanks.
> Ok. Why not work on your comprehension level?
> ...
You don't understand sarcasm?
> >> It is a huge challenge for all desktop distros... and one which nobody seems
> >> to have a good answer.
>
> > The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
> > collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
> > never get resolved.
>
> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to *some
> extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
Resolve the issue with who? Gnome? Got any links to the discussion or
what was changed? I'm surprised there has been some collaboration. I
guess it doesn't make it so unlikely.
> > I'm not sure your analogy even matters.
>
> Of course - you admitted you do not understand it. Given that, how could
> you be sure?
I did not admit that. That's another lie on your part. You snipped out
the context. Since when did you become Peter Kohlmann?
> > Getting uniformity between KDE and gnome is not the same as getting uniformity
> > across KDE or gnome individually. Do you have a problem with the UI
> > differences between XP, Vista and Windows 7? Should you? I certainly don't
> > think so.
>
> It is a similar problem with their UIs are all on one system.
>
I'm assuming you meant "when their UIs are all on one system." You
mean when XP, Vista, and Windows 7 are being dual-booted? I don't see
how that is a problem in that situation. I also don't see a problem
with being able to switch between classic view and whatever the other
term is for XP for instance. That's two different UI designs on the
same OS, but you're picking which one you want. I would have a problem
with inconsistencies though throughout classic view for example.
Snit
fda1f558-2358-449c...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 3/4/10
1:55 PM:
This has already been acknowledged. Why the redundancy?
> Can you post references to dozens of articles you haven't read but
> pretend to have read, a reference to a short paper (referring to the
> subject of that paper with a term you made up) that has nothing to do
> with this problem, and then flip-flop on your views? That should clear
> everything up, thanks.
And this is just random blabbering. Posted *again*. Why? Are you looking
to change the topic to your blabbering?
>> Ok. �Why not work on your comprehension level?
>> ...
>
>
> You don't understand sarcasm?
If you understand the analogy then by all means show it! If not, and with
your claim you do not and your comments that show you do not, below... why
should anyone assume otherwise? Esp. as you work to change the topic to
obfuscate your apparent and admitted ignorance.
>>>> It is a huge challenge for all desktop distros... and one which nobody
>>>> seems
>>>> to have a good answer.
>>
>>> The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
>>> collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
>>> never get resolved.
>>
>> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
>> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to *some
>> extent* it has been successful. �To some extent.
>
> Resolve the issue with who? Gnome?
Gnome was made *after* KDE. This is common knowledge in COLA.
> Got any links to the discussion or what was changed? I'm surprised there has
> been some collaboration. I guess it doesn't make it so unlikely.
<http://www.kde.org/announcements/announcement.php>
-----
Unix popularity grows thanks to the free variants, mostly
Linux. But still a consistant, nice looking free
desktop-environment is missing.
...
IMHO a GUI should offer a complete, graphical environment. It
should allow a users to do his everyday tasks with it, like
starting applications, reading mail, configuring his desktop,
editing some files, delete some files, look at some pictures,
etc. All parts must fit together and work together. A nice
button with a nice "Editor"-icon is not at all a graphical
user environment if it invokes "xterm -e vi".
...
The idea is NOT to create a GUI for the complete UNIX-system
or the System-Administrator. For that purpose the UNIX-CLI
with thousands of tools and scripting languages is much
better. The idea is to create a GUI for an ENDUSER. Somebody
who wants to browse the web with Linux, write some letters
and play some nice games.
I really believed that is even yet possible with Linux until
I configured my girlfriends Box. Well, I didn't notice
anymore that I work with lots of different kind of menues,
scrollbars and textwidgets. I already know that some widgets
need to be under the mouse when they should get the
keyevents, some sliders wants the middle mouse for dragging
and some textwidgets only want emacs-bindings and don't
understand keys like "pos1" or "end". And selecting some text
is different everywere, too. Even the menues and buttons (for
exampel Xaw, Fvwm, XForms, Motif) behave completely
different.
...
So one of the major goals is to provide a modern and common
look&feel for all the applications. And this is exactly the
reason, why this project is different from elder attempts.
-----
It amazes me how few in COLA show any signs of understanding the goals of
such a major OSS project as KDE.
>>> I'm not sure your analogy even matters.
>>
>> Of course - you admitted you do not understand it. �Given that, how could
>> you be sure?
>
> I did not admit that. That's another lie on your part. You snipped out
> the context. Since when did you become Peter Kohlmann?
I quoted your claim and snipped your random blabbering where you referenced
your past insults. If you now wish to rescind your claim, fine - then show
some evidence you understand the metaphor and explain why, below, you make
comments that show you do not. Do that and there is no reason to doubt your
new claim you meant your admission as sarcasm. Fail to do so, however, and
there is no reason to think you understand the metaphor, no matter how much
you want to claim you do.
>>> Getting uniformity between KDE and gnome is not the same as getting
>>> uniformity across KDE or gnome individually. Do you have a problem with the
>>> UI differences between XP, Vista and Windows 7? Should you? I certainly
>>> don't think so.
>>>
>> It is a similar problem with their UIs are all on one system.
>>
>
> I'm assuming you meant "when their UIs are all on one system." You mean when
> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 are being dual-booted?
Nope. On one system, all mixed. And without even the context change of,
say, an older or "foreign" system being in a window (as with how
virtualization is often used).
Your assumption, by the way, shows a *lack* of understanding of the
metaphor. People at Penn Station do not get to pick which sets of signs
they want when they walk in the door - they get all three at once.
> I don't see how that is a problem in that situation.
In the situation you created that shows your lack of understanding of the
metaphor, sure.
> I also don't see a problem with being able to switch between classic view and
> whatever the other term is for XP for instance. That's two different UI
> designs on the same OS, but you're picking which one you want. I would have a
> problem with inconsistencies though throughout classic view for example.
I agree this is a problem.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Mar 4, 1:58?pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> So the question becomes, assuming you understand the problem, if you have
>> ideas on how it can be resolved with desktop Linux distros *without* having
>> any such overriding authority.
>
> You're probably right, I'm too dumb to understand a simple analogy.
> Can you post references to dozens of articles you haven't read but
> pretend to have read, a reference to a short paper (referring to the
> subject of that paper with a term you made up) that has nothing to do
> with this problem, and then flip-flop on your views? That should clear
> everything up, thanks.
LOL.
--
You will win success in whatever calling you adopt.
Snit
3/4/10 5:21 PM:
He is rather pathetic... but at least he knows he is "too dumb" to
understand the analogy.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
What does that have to do with anything?
> It amazes me how few in COLA show anysignsof understanding the goals of
> such a major OSS project as KDE.
So KDE was a response to gnome. That is meaningless in the context of
the metaphor, and in response to my statement. I said "The only answer
if you want uniformity without authority is collaboration. This seems
highly unlikely in this case, so it may never get resolved." KDE being
uniform and gnome being uniform still fall into the category of having
two distinct, but uniform in their own right, signs at Penn Station
which is exactly the problem you wanted to fix! You responded like
there was some collaboration between KDE and gnome to fix this
problem, but what you gave me was the history of KDE. So it would seem
to me that KDE does not have power over gnome, and that there is
currently no collaboration, so my original statement still stands.
> >>> I'm not sure your analogy even matters.
>
> >> Of course - you admitted you do not understand it. Given that, how could
> >> you be sure?
>
> > I did not admit that. That's another lie on your part. You snipped out
> > the context. Since when did you become Peter Kohlmann?
>
> I quoted your claim and snipped your random blabbering where you referenced
> your past insults. If you now wish to rescind your claim, fine - then show
> some evidence you understand themetaphorand explain why, below, you make
> comments that show you do not. Do that and there is no reason to doubt your
> new claim you meant your admission as sarcasm. Fail to do so, however, and
> there is no reason to think you understand themetaphor, no matter how much
> you want to claim you do.
You really don't understand sarcasm do you?
> >>> Getting uniformity between KDE and gnome is not the same as getting
> >>> uniformity across KDE or gnome individually. Do you have a problem with the
> >>> UI differences between XP, Vista and Windows 7? Should you? I certainly
> >>> don't think so.
>
> >> It is a similar problem with their UIs are all on one system.
>
> > I'm assuming you meant "when their UIs are all on one system." You mean when
> > XP, Vista, and Windows 7 are being dual-booted?
>
> Nope. On one system, all mixed. And without even the context change of,
> say, an older or "foreign" system being in a window (as with how
> virtualization is often used).
Well it's possible I'm mistaken, but I don't see how one could do that
with XP, Vista, or Windows 7.
> Your assumption, by the way, shows a *lack* of understanding of themetaphor. People at Penn Station do not get to pick which sets ofsigns
> they want when they walk in the door - they get all three at once.
Yes, which is why your metaphor is useless in the case of Linux. How
do KDE and gnome apps get mixed on a system? The user picks them.
Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment
now?
> > I don't see how that is a problem in that situation.
>
> In the situation you created that shows your lack of understanding of themetaphor, sure.
The metaphor doesn't apply. A user can put any apps on a desktop he/
she wants. I can't go and change the signs a Penn Station to my
liking. Your metaphor was more appropriate to XP, Vista, Windows 7,
Mac OS X, and various Linux desktops all being inconsistent with each
other, ie. how can a user navigate through their computing needs when
potentially they have to have a different understanding on how to use
each system. All your simple example is good for is pointing out that
yes, inconsistency can lead to confusion. We can learn nothing from it
because how it got to that point and how to solve it, are directly
related to a single entity having some authority.
Snit
8b6550b5-9666-40a5...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
4:23 AM:
...
>>>> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
>>>> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to *some
>>>> extent* it has been successful. �To some extent.
>>
>>> Resolve the issue with who? Gnome?
>>
>> Gnome was made *after* KDE. �This is common knowledge in COLA.
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
Are you serious? Since KDE came before Gnome, how could it have had a goal
to resolve issues with Gnome - *which did not even exist*?
The answer is obvious: it could not have.
>> It amazes me how few in COLA show any signs of understanding the goals of
>> such a major OSS project as KDE.
>
> So KDE was a response to gnome.
What? Remember: KDE came *before* Gnome. It was not a response to it.
> That is meaningless in the context of the metaphor, and in response to my
> statement. I said "The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
> collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may never get
> resolved." KDE being uniform and gnome being uniform still fall into the
> category of having two distinct, but uniform in their own right, signs at Penn
> Station which is exactly the problem you wanted to fix! You responded like
> there was some collaboration between KDE and gnome to fix this problem, but
> what you gave me was the history of KDE.
I did not mention Gnome. You made that up.
> So it would seem to me that KDE does not have power over gnome, and that there
> is currently no collaboration, so my original statement still stands.
You are beginning to understand the problem with the current ecosystem.
Excellent! Now do you have a solution? So far your only idea has been to
have a ruling authority - but the nature of the OSS community makes that
impossible (and it is not wanted by most). So your one idea is not going to
work.
...
>>> I'm assuming you meant "when their UIs are all on one system." You mean when
>>> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 are being dual-booted?
>>
>> Nope. On one system, all mixed. �And without even the context change of,
>> say, an older or "foreign" system being in a window (as with how
>> virtualization is often used).
>
> Well it's possible I'm mistaken, but I don't see how one could do that
> with XP, Vista, or Windows 7.
OK. Good. While it might be possible (it is on OS X) it is not common. For
good reason!
>> Your assumption, by the way, shows a *lack* of understanding of themetaphor.
>> �People at Penn Station do not get to pick which sets ofsigns they want when
>> they walk in the door - they get all three at once.
>
> Yes, which is why your metaphor is useless in the case of Linux. How
> do KDE and gnome apps get mixed on a system? The user picks them.
Nope. The distro picks them... the end user picks a distro and then can
make changes.
> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment
> now?
Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do so
effectively. This is part of the problem.
>>> I don't see how that is a problem in that situation.
>>
>> In the situation you created that shows your lack of understanding of
>> themetaphor, sure.
>
> The metaphor doesn't apply.
We are in agreement that you do not understand how the metaphor applies.
> A user can put any apps on a desktop he/ she wants. I can't go and change the
> signs a Penn Station to my liking. Your metaphor was more appropriate to XP,
> Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X, and various Linux desktops all being inconsistent
> with each other, ie. how can a user navigate through their computing needs
> when potentially they have to have a different understanding on how to use
> each system.
I have never seen a system running all those OSs at the same time! Maybe
you have, but it is not common... hardly relevant to the common case at all!
> All your simple example is good for is pointing out that yes, inconsistency
> can lead to confusion. We can learn nothing from it because how it got to that
> point and how to solve it, are directly related to a single entity having some
> authority.
Which is your only idea of a "fix", even though the OSS community has worked
toward making things better *without* such authority. Things are better now
than they were 10 years ago. Clearly.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 4:23 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >>>> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
> >>>> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to *some
> >>>> extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
>
> >>> Resolve the issue with who? Gnome?
>
> >> Gnome was made *after* KDE. This is common knowledge in COLA.
>
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Are you serious? Since KDE came before Gnome, how could it have had a goal
> to resolve issues with Gnome - *which did not even exist*?
>
> The answer is obvious: it could not have.
>
So they can't change their goals? KDE can't possibly collaborate with
gnome because KDE came first? You're making absolutely no sense.
My fault, screwed up the sentence.
> > That is meaningless in the context of the metaphor, and in response to my
> > statement. I said "The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
> > collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may never get
> > resolved." KDE being uniform and gnome being uniform still fall into the
> > category of having two distinct, but uniform in their own right, signs at Penn
> > Station which is exactly the problem you wanted to fix! You responded like
> > there was some collaboration between KDE and gnome to fix this problem, but
> > what you gave me was the history of KDE.
>
> I did not mention Gnome. You made that up.
I mentioned collaboration between gnome and KDE, and you gave me a
history of KDE in response. Why KDE being first and their stated goals
prevent any sort of collaboration is beyond me.
> > So it would seem to me that KDE does not have power over gnome, and that there
> > is currently no collaboration, so my original statement still stands.
>
> You are beginning to understand the problem with the current ecosystem.
> Excellent! Now do you have a solution? So far your only idea has been to
> have a ruling authority - but the nature of the OSS community makes that
> impossible (and it is not wanted by most). So your one idea is not going to
> work.
>
I said as much. You're quick to criticize but slow to give an
explanation. Yes, my *only* idea won't work, like I said. By the way,
it was to have collaboration, not a ruling authority. Do you have
*any* solutions yourself?
>
> >>> I'm assuming you meant "when their UIs are all on one system." You mean when
> >>> XP, Vista, and Windows 7 are being dual-booted?
>
> >> Nope. On one system, all mixed. And without even the context change of,
> >> say, an older or "foreign" system being in a window (as with how
> >> virtualization is often used).
>
> > Well it's possible I'm mistaken, but I don't see how one could do that
> > with XP, Vista, or Windows 7.
>
> OK. Good. While it might be possible (it is on OS X) it is not common. For
> good reason!
>
> >> Your assumption, by the way, shows a *lack* of understanding of themetaphor.
> >> People at Penn Station do not get to pick which sets ofsigns they want when
> >> they walk in the door - they get all three at once.
>
> > Yes, which is why your metaphor is useless in the case of Linux. How
> > do KDE and gnome apps get mixed on a system? The user picks them.
>
> Nope. The distro picks them... the end user picks a distro and then can
> make changes.
The distro doesn't pick which apps a person can install. Neither does
Windows. I can install plenty of Windows apps that breaks all
consistency (hell we just made one to fit the customer's
requirements). OS vendors do not have absolute power over the users,
unless you're a DoR, in which case you believe Microsoft controls all.
> > Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment
> > now?
>
> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do so
> effectively. This is part of the problem.
So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look
before they can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it
will never happen.
> >>> I don't see how that is a problem in that situation.
>
> >> In the situation you created that shows your lack of understanding of
> >> themetaphor, sure.
>
> > The metaphor doesn't apply.
>
> We are in agreement that you do not understand how the metaphor applies.
You just said a couple paragraphs up that I understand. Well if I
don't understand, how about you explain it? You're becoming a typical
COLA poster: flat out say someone is wrong, but provide no
explanation.
> > A user can put any apps on a desktop he/ she wants. I can't go and change the
> > signs a Penn Station to my liking. Your metaphor was more appropriate to XP,
> > Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X, and various Linux desktops all being inconsistent
> > with each other, ie. how can a user navigate through their computing needs
> > when potentially they have to have a different understanding on how to use
> > each system.
>
> I have never seen a system running all those OSs at the same time! Maybe
> you have, but it is not common... hardly relevant to the common case at all!
Where did I say a single system was running all those?
> > All your simple example is good for is pointing out that yes, inconsistency
> > can lead to confusion. We can learn nothing from it because how it got to that
> > point and how to solve it, are directly related to a single entity having some
> > authority.
>
> Which is your only idea of a "fix", even though the OSS community has worked
> toward making things better *without* such authority. Things are better now
> than they were 10 years ago. Clearly.
>
>
You act like you're correcting me, but you're not. The story you
quoted directly says that the solution to the problem is having Amtrak
demand everyone be consistent. That does not apply to Linux because
there is no equivalent of Amtrak. I have said that numerous times now.
That's why your metaphor doesn't apply in this case. If you want to
talk about other solutions, then go ahead. I personally have none, but
you certainly act like you can solve this problem. If you want to talk
about other solutions though, it's pointless to bring up this story.
Again, explain how having confusing signs at Penn Station which is
easily correctable by having Amtrak demand everyone use the same kind
of signs applies to Linux. What is the Linux version of Amtrak in this
particular metaphor?
Snit
cccce3a2-04ec-406a...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
12:37 PM:
> On Mar 5, 11:33�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 8b6550b5-9666-40a5-8afd-6f5ebd53d...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
>> 4:23 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
>>>>>> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to
>>>>>> *some
>>>>>> extent* it has been successful. �To some extent.
>>
>>>>> Resolve the issue with who? Gnome?
>>
>>>> Gnome was made *after* KDE. �This is common knowledge in COLA.
>>
>>> What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>> Are you serious? �Since KDE came before Gnome, how could it have had a goal
>> to resolve issues with Gnome - *which did not even exist*?
>>
>> The answer is obvious: it could not have.
>
> So they can't change their goals? KDE can't possibly collaborate with
> gnome because KDE came first? You're making absolutely no sense.
You are just lost. Is it on purpose just to be silly? Maybe?
The point was, just to help you: the situation with the OSS community has
improved - in fact, that was the very reason KDE was made. And things have
gotten better.
This has been made clear to you repeatedly. You do not even pretend to
disagree with the point, but want to - for some reason - move the goal post
to Gnome.
Seems you want to make the point that with Gnome in the picture there may be
some backtracking on the progress... is that correct? Not really sure what
your point is.
...
>> You are beginning to understand the problem with the current ecosystem.
>> Excellent! �Now do you have a solution? �So far your only idea has been to
>> have a ruling authority - but the nature of the OSS community makes that
>> impossible (and it is not wanted by most). �So your one idea is not going to
>> work.
>
> I said as much. You're quick to criticize but slow to give an
> explanation. Yes, my *only* idea won't work, like I said. By the way,
> it was to have collaboration, not a ruling authority. Do you have
> *any* solutions yourself?
Collaboration is the solution. Good to see we agree on that. And, for what
it is worth, Shuttleworth and many others in the OSS community also agree.
...
>>> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment
>>> now?
>>
>> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do so
>> effectively. �This is part of the problem.
>
> So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look
> before they can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it
> will never happen.
Good! Your claim that this is what I "want" is just absurd. But when an
ecosystem is done well, users expect and demand other apps to live up to the
standards of the system - With OS X, look at Firefox and OpenOffice as
examples. Apple did not dictate *anything*... but both groups *want* their
apps to be excellent.
>>>>> I don't see how that is a problem in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>> In the situation you created that shows your lack of understanding of
>>>> themetaphor, sure.
>>>>
>>> The metaphor doesn't apply.
>>>
>> We are in agreement that you do not understand how the metaphor applies.
>>
>
> You just said a couple paragraphs up that I understand. Well if I don't
> understand, how about you explain it? You're becoming a typical COLA poster:
> flat out say someone is wrong, but provide no explanation.
This whole discussion has been covering your misunderstanding... see
directly below for another example:
>>> A user can put any apps on a desktop he/ she wants. I can't go and change
>>> the signs a Penn Station to my liking. Your metaphor was more appropriate to
>>> XP, Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X, and various Linux desktops all being
>>> inconsistent with each other, ie. how can a user navigate through their
>>> computing needs when potentially they have to have a different understanding
>>> on how to use each system.
>>>
>> I have never seen a system running all those OSs at the same time! �Maybe you
>> have, but it is not common... hardly relevant to the common case at all!
>>
> Where did I say a single system was running all those?
When you said it fit the metaphor of a single system with different UIs.
But you missed that. Fair enough - you did not understand the metaphor
about one system with multiple simultaneous UIs and the problems inherent
with that.
>>> All your simple example is good for is pointing out that yes, inconsistency
>>> can lead to confusion. We can learn nothing from it because how it got to
>>> that point and how to solve it, are directly related to a single entity
>>> having some authority.
>>>
>> Which is your only idea of a "fix", even though the OSS community has worked
>> toward making things better *without* such authority. �Things are better now
>> than they were 10 years ago. �Clearly.
> You act like you're correcting me, but you're not. The story you
> quoted directly says that the solution to the problem is having Amtrak
> demand everyone be consistent.
I understand you are focused on that, but that is not going to work for OSS.
Before we agreed to that. Not sure why you are still harping on it.
> That does not apply to Linux because there is no equivalent of Amtrak.
Good! You understand the solution you keep focusing on will not work with
OSS. But I think you did before... odd to bring it up again.
> I have said that numerous times now.
Right! You keep bringing it up over and over and over, even though we both
agree it would not work for OSS. It is odd.
> That's why your metaphor doesn't apply in this case.
Ah, you think your odd obsession with the *solution* in the Penn Station
case invalidates the metaphor of the problem. OK... but how? I do not see
that.
> If you want to talk about other solutions, then go ahead. I personally have
> none, but you certainly act like you can solve this problem.
Like *I* can? What? Over the years I have made it clear that the idea of
others in COLA that I create my own distro to solve the problem is a silly
one. But above you talk about collaboration as a solution... but now say
you have no ideas for a solution.
Maybe as we talk about this some more you will gain a more complete view of
your opinions.
> If you want to talk about other solutions though, it's pointless to bring up
> this story.
The fact you did not get the metaphor, and this think it is pointless, is
not in contention.
> Again, explain how having confusing signs at Penn Station which is easily
> correctable by having Amtrak demand everyone use the same kind of signs
> applies to Linux. What is the Linux version of Amtrak in this particular
> metaphor?
See: you keep going back to the solution for Penn Station and not looking at
the point of the metaphor - the problem.
Do you see your error now?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 12:37 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:33 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 8b6550b5-9666-40a5-8afd-6f5ebd53d...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
> >> 4:23 AM:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>>>> It might not... though things have been moving in the right direction.
> >>>>>> Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this issue, and to
> >>>>>> *some
> >>>>>> extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
>
> >>>>> Resolve the issue with who? Gnome?
>
> >>>> Gnome was made *after* KDE. This is common knowledge in COLA.
>
> >>> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> >> Are you serious? Since KDE came before Gnome, how could it have had a goal
> >> to resolve issues with Gnome - *which did not even exist*?
>
> >> The answer is obvious: it could not have.
>
> > So they can't change their goals? KDE can't possibly collaborate with
> > gnome because KDE came first? You're making absolutely no sense.
>
> You are just lost. Is it on purpose just to be silly? Maybe?
>
> The point was, just to help you: the situation with the OSS community has
> improved - in fact, that was the very reason KDE was made. And things have
> gotten better.
KDE came out in 1996.
> This has been made clear to you repeatedly. You do not even pretend to
> disagree with the point, but want to - for some reason - move the goal post
> to Gnome.
You're insane. I brought up collaboration as possible solution. You
said KDE was already working on that. Right here:
[me] The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
never get resolved.
[you] It might not... though things have been moving in the right
direction. Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this
issue, and to *some extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
So you claimed it was successful to some extent with some
collaboration. I was surprised, and asked for some info, assuming you
meant some collaboration with gnome. You gave me the history of KDE
and starting barking about how it came first, which had nothing to do
with the comment I made.
> Seems you want to make the point that with Gnome in the picture there may be
> some backtracking on the progress... is that correct? Not really sure what
> your point is.
>
My point was, according to your story, the only real solution is
collaboration and I didn't see that happening any time soon. You
claimed KDE was making some progress, but apparently they're not.
>
> >> You are beginning to understand the problem with the current ecosystem.
> >> Excellent! Now do you have a solution? So far your only idea has been to
> >> have a ruling authority - but the nature of the OSS community makes that
> >> impossible (and it is not wanted by most). So your one idea is not going to
> >> work.
>
> > I said as much. You're quick to criticize but slow to give an
> > explanation. Yes, my *only* idea won't work, like I said. By the way,
> > it was to have collaboration, not a ruling authority. Do you have
> > *any* solutions yourself?
>
> Collaboration is the solution. Good to see we agree on that. And, for what
> it is worth, Shuttleworth and many others in the OSS community also agree.
>
Fucking fantastic. That's what I said from the get go. "The only
answer if you want uniformity without authority is collaboration."
> >>> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment
> >>> now?
>
> >> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do so
> >> effectively. This is part of the problem.
>
> > So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look
> > before they can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it
> > will never happen.
>
> Good! Your claim that this is what I "want" is just absurd. But when an
> ecosystem is done well, users expect and demand other apps to live up to the
> standards of the system - With OS X, look at Firefox and OpenOffice as
> examples. Apple did not dictate *anything*... but both groups *want* their
> apps to be excellent.
How is this different in Linux?
Because it is the central point of the article you posted.
> > That does not apply to Linux because there is no equivalent of Amtrak.
>
> Good! You understand the solution you keep focusing on will not work with
> OSS. But I think you did before... odd to bring it up again.
I bring it up, because you quoted the story, which was the whole
purpose of this thread.
> > I have said that numerous times now.
>
> Right! You keep bringing it up over and over and over, even though we both
> agree it would not work for OSS. It is odd.
Great, then if you have any understanding of what a metaphor is, you
will realize that the article is not a metaphor for what is going on
in Linux.
> > That's why your metaphor doesn't apply in this case.
>
> Ah, you think your odd obsession with the *solution* in the Penn Station
> case invalidates the metaphor of the problem. OK... but how? I do not see
> that.
Haha so it's the "metaphor of the problem" now and not a "metaphor of
signs?" You keep saying that the article is a metaphor for what is
going on in Linux, but it can't be, as you just said, because there is
no Amtrak in Linux.
> > If you want to talk about other solutions, then go ahead. I personally have
> > none, but you certainly act like you can solve this problem.
>
> Like *I* can? What? Over the years I have made it clear that the idea of
> others in COLA that I create my own distro to solve the problem is a silly
> one. But above you talk about collaboration as a solution... but now say
> you have no ideas for a solution.
"Other" being the key word of "other solutions." I personally have
none [no other solutions, no *other* solutions, no OTHER solutions].
Read.
> Maybe as we talk about this some more you will gain a more complete view of
> your opinions.
>
> > If you want to talk about other solutions though, it's pointless to bring up
> > this story.
>
> The fact you did not get the metaphor, and this think it is pointless, is
> not in contention.
You do not understand what a metaphor is.
cc
> > correctable by having Amtrak demand everyone use the same kind of signs
> > applies to Linux. What is the Linux version of Amtrak in this particular
> > metaphor?
>
> See: you keep going back to the solution for Penn Station and not looking at
> the point of the metaphor - the problem.
>
> Do you see your error now?
>
My error is assuming you understand what a metaphor is. You can't say
the article is a metaphor, then pick out which parts count towards it
and which don't. Next time you want to claim something is a metaphor,
just post the part that is the metaphor.
Snit
cd13f422-34ab-4ce5...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
1:37 PM:
From the first post in the thread:
-----
Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
understand and learn from it.
-----
Even with me predicting your actions, you could not help yourself. Kinda
funny.
In any case, you and I - I think - have agreed the metaphor is correct in
that a single system having multiple simultaneous UIs is a clear problem for
users... and that with desktop Linux the solution is greater collaboration.
Then again, you have been jumping around a lot - so maybe you do not agree
to that. Care to focus on the topic at hand and comment?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
0533a3f5-fe3d-41cd...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
1:36 PM:
...
>>>> The answer is obvious: it could not have.
>>
>>> So they can't change their goals? KDE can't possibly collaborate with
>>> gnome because KDE came first? You're making absolutely no sense.
>>
>> You are just lost. �Is it on purpose just to be silly? �Maybe?
>>
>> The point was, just to help you: the situation with the OSS community has
>> improved - in fact, that was the very reason KDE was made. �And things have
>> gotten better.
>
> KDE came out in 1996.
Correct!
>> This has been made clear to you repeatedly. �You do not even pretend to
>> disagree with the point, but want to - for some reason - move the goal post
>> to Gnome. �
>
> You're insane. I brought up collaboration as possible solution. You
> said KDE was already working on that. Right here:
That is what KDE was made for. Yes!
> [me] The only answer if you want uniformity without authority is
> collaboration. This seems highly unlikely in this case, so it may
> never get resolved.
>
> [you] It might not... though things have been moving in the right
> direction. Heck, one of the major goals of KDE was to resolve this
> issue, and to *some extent* it has been successful. To some extent.
>
> So you claimed it was successful to some extent with some
> collaboration.
Yes! And it has been. That was one of the main goals of KDE. As I have
shown you.
> I was surprised, and asked for some info, assuming you meant some
> collaboration with gnome.
Right: you made a rather bizarre assumption. Oddly enough you keep focusing
on it. Weird.
> You gave me the history of KDE and starting barking about how it came first,
> which had nothing to do with the comment I made.
Ah, I did not follow your rather bizarre assumption. OK. Have we got it
all cleared up now?
>> Seems you want to make the point that with Gnome in the picture there may be
>> some backtracking on the progress... is that correct? �Not really sure what
>> your point is.
>
> My point was, according to your story, the only real solution is
> collaboration and I didn't see that happening any time soon. You
> claimed KDE was making some progress, but apparently they're not.
Look at OSS before KDE. Then look at it once KDE came on the scene. Do you
not see where things have gotten better (in relevant areas, of course!)
>>>> You are beginning to understand the problem with the current ecosystem.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent! �Now do you have a solution? �So far your only idea has been to
>>>> have a ruling authority - but the nature of the OSS community makes that
>>>> impossible (and it is not wanted by most). �So your one idea is not going
>>>> to work.
>>>>
>>> I said as much. You're quick to criticize but slow to give an explanation.
>>> Yes, my *only* idea won't work, like I said. By the way, it was to have
>>> collaboration, not a ruling authority. Do you have *any* solutions yourself?
>>>
>> Collaboration is the solution. �Good to see we agree on that. �And, for what
>> it is worth, Shuttleworth and many others in the OSS community also agree.
>
> Fucking fantastic. That's what I said from the get go. "The only
> answer if you want uniformity without authority is collaboration."
Good to see we agree. Splendid!
>>>>> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment now?
>>>>>
>>>> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do
>>>> so effectively. �This is part of the problem.
>>>>
>>> So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look before they
>>> can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it will never happen.
>>>
>> Good! �Your claim that this is what I "want" is just absurd. �But when an
>> ecosystem is done well, users expect and demand other apps to live up to the
>> standards of the system - With OS X, look at Firefox and OpenOffice as
>> examples. �Apple did not dictate *anything*... but both groups *want* their
>> apps to be excellent.
>>
> How is this different in Linux?
There is no goal for programs to go toward. Look at OpenOffice on different
distros - what system is it consistent with?
...
>>> You act like you're correcting me, but you're not. The story you
>>> quoted directly says that the solution to the problem is having Amtrak
>>> demand everyone be consistent.
>>
>> I understand you are focused on that, but that is not going to work for OSS.
>> Before we agreed to that. �Not sure why you are still harping on it.
>
> Because it is the central point of the article you posted.
The referenced quotes from the article:
<http://www.slate.com/id/2246104/>
-----
The problem at Penn Station is not that designers skipped
these steps. It's that three sets of designers did them three
times. ... The fundamental wayfinding problem at Penn
Station lies in the fact that each of these entities manages
its own signs, usually without consulting the others. As a
result, the station essentially has three different systems
of signage.
This is a crazy way to manage information at the biggest
railway station in the country. The user experiences Penn
Station as one place. But the current system assumes that the
user experiences the station as three distinct spaces.
...
Each of these three sign systems has strengths and
weaknesses. But the problems with Penn Station are not,
fundamentally, design problems. They're power problems. If
the authority in Penn Station were centralized�or if Amtrak
stepped up to its role as landlord and decided to address the
station's wayfinding problems with a unified sign system�the
place could be made less confusing. Mike Gallagher, Amtrak's
Superintendent of Passenger Services for Penn, pointed out
via e-mail that while each tenant manages its own signs, Penn
has "ample signage throughout the station, directing
passengers to the area of the station they are looking to
travel from." But having lots of signs is a pale substitute
for having signs that really speak to one another.
Penn Station is a remarkably challenging environment for
wayfinding. But it's a useful place to examine, because it
highlights the single most crucial thing a wayfinding
designer must do: think about the user and understand how he
will perceive a space. When signs are good, and you pay
attention to them, you can sense the level of thought that
went into them. Someone, somewhere, anticipated the journey
you are on, and the information you would need. At Penn
Station as a whole, it's no one's job to think about how
you'll get where you're going. And you can tell.
-----
I do not see it there. Not saying the off-topic points you are focusing on
are not at the link, but certainly was not my "goal post". Here: my
comments:
-----
Multiple user interfaces... perhaps all good, but not
consistent with one another. And it makes for a mess.
If you can understand the problem with Penn Station signage,
you can likely understand more about the problems with the
UIs of the various desktop Linux distros. So what could be
done to make the Penn Station signage better? What can be
done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and
other such distros better?
Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
understand and learn from it.
-----
The answer to the question as to what can be done to make the systems better
is obvious by the way: greater consistency in the system. Clearly.
And you sometimes seem to grasp that. Not sure if you always do... with all
your fighting over... um... what are you fighting about? I know you want to
move goal posts and are whining I will not follow... but anything relevant?
>>> That does not apply to Linux because there is no equivalent of Amtrak.
>>
>> Good! �You understand the solution you keep focusing on will not work with
>> OSS. �But I think you did before... odd to bring it up again.
>
> I bring it up, because you quoted the story, which was the whole
> purpose of this thread.
As noted: you did not understand the metaphor. No big deal. Do you now?
>>> I have said that numerous times now.
>>
>> Right! �You keep bringing it up over and over and over, even though we both
>> agree it would not work for OSS. �It is odd.
>
> Great, then if you have any understanding of what a metaphor is, you
> will realize that the article is not a metaphor for what is going on
> in Linux.
Do you see your error yet in not understanding the relevant similarities?
Hint: multiple UIs in one system.
This is not complex.
>>> That's why your metaphor doesn't apply in this case.
>>
>> Ah, you think your odd obsession with the *solution* in the Penn Station
>> case invalidates the metaphor of the problem. �OK... but how? �I do not see
>> that.
>
> Haha so it's the "metaphor of the problem" now and not a "metaphor of
> signs?" You keep saying that the article is a metaphor for what is
> going on in Linux, but it can't be, as you just said, because there is
> no Amtrak in Linux.
You cannot get the metaphor without Amtrak in Linux. That is funny.
>>> If you want to talk about other solutions, then go ahead. I personally have
>>> none, but you certainly act like you can solve this problem.
>>
>> Like *I* can? �What? �Over the years I have made it clear that the idea of
>> others in COLA that I create my own distro to solve the problem is a silly
>> one. �But above you talk about collaboration as a solution... but now say
>> you have no ideas for a solution.
>
> "Other" being the key word of "other solutions." I personally have
> none [no other solutions, no *other* solutions, no OTHER solutions].
> Read.
I thought you were talking about other solutions than an authority... but
not worth going back in the thread to check. I think we both agree that
collaboration is the solution.
We agree: and you still want to argue. You are funny.
>> Maybe as we talk about this some more you will gain a more complete view of
>> your opinions.
>>
>>> If you want to talk about other solutions though, it's pointless to bring up
>>> this story.
>>
>> The fact you did not get the metaphor, and this think it is pointless, is
>> not in contention.
>
> You do not understand what a metaphor is.
Ah, grade school insult time for you. OK.
>>> Again, explain how having confusing signs at Penn Station which is easily
>>> correctable by having Amtrak demand everyone use the same kind of signs
>>> applies to Linux. What is the Linux version of Amtrak in this particular
>>> metaphor?
>>
>> See: you keep going back to the solution for Penn Station and not looking at
>> the point of the metaphor - the problem.
>>
>> Do you see your error now?
>>
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 1:37 PM:
>
> > On Mar 5, 2:55 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Again, explain how having confusing signs at Penn Station which is easily
> >>> correctable by having Amtrak demand everyone use the same kind of signs
> >>> applies to Linux. What is the Linux version of Amtrak in this particular
> >>> metaphor?
>
> >> See: you keep going back to the solution for Penn Station and not looking at
> >> the point of the metaphor - the problem.
>
> >> Do you see your error now?
> > My error is assuming you understand what a metaphor is. You can't say
> > the article is a metaphor, then pick out which parts count towards it
> > and which don't. Next time you want to claim something is a metaphor,
> > just post the part that is the metaphor.
>
> From the first post in the thread:
>
> -----
> Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
> to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
> understand and learn from it.
> -----
>
> Even with me predicting your actions, you could not help yourself. Kinda
> funny.
So you admitted it failed in certain areas, then argued it didn't.
Somehow I don't find that surprising.
> In any case, you and I - I think - have agreed the metaphor is correct in
> that a single system having multiple simultaneous UIs is a clear problem for
> users... and that with desktop Linux the solution is greater collaboration.
"The metaphor is correct" makes absolutely no sense in the context you
used it. The metaphor can't be right or wrong about a topic. The
metaphor doesn't offer an opinion about a topic.
In any case, yes inconsistency is a problem, and the solution is
collaboration. I said that from the get go before you started off on
some crazy tangent. That is also an entirely separate problem/solution
from the article. What created the problem, and how to solve it are
completely different between Penn Station and Linux. Do you understand
that much?
> Then again, you have been jumping around a lot - so maybe you do not agree
> to that. Care to focus on the topic at hand and comment?
>
I commented to begin with. I said, "The only answer if you want
uniformity without authority is collaboration." with my second post in
this thread. You then went on about KDE's history and goals, and cried
because I pointed out how you lied about articles you have read in
response to your condescending "assuming you understand." So here we
are, back where I was to begin with.
cc
If they aren't going to collaborate with other desktop environments,
then what is the point of any other collaboration they do?
Then why did you argue it in the first place?
> >>>>> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment now?
>
> >>>> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do
> >>>> so effectively. This is part of the problem.
>
> >>> So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look before they
> >>> can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it will never happen.
>
> >> Good! Your claim that this is what I "want" is just absurd. But when an
> >> ecosystem is done well, users expect and demand other apps to live up to the
> >> standards of the system - With OS X, look at Firefox and OpenOffice as
> >> examples. Apple did not dictate *anything*... but both groups *want* their
> >> apps to be excellent.
>
> > How is this different in Linux?
>
> There is no goal for programs to go toward. Look at OpenOffice on different
> distros - what system is it consistent with?
Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>
> >>> You act like you're correcting me, but you're not. The story you
> >>> quoted directly says that the solution to the problem is having Amtrak
> >>> demand everyone be consistent.
>
> >> I understand you are focused on that, but that is not going to work for OSS.
> >> Before we agreed to that. Not sure why you are still harping on it.
>
> > Because it is the central point of the article you posted.
>
> The referenced quotes from the article:
>
> <http://www.slate.com/id/2246104/>
> -----
> The problem at Penn Station is not that designers skipped
> these steps. It's that three sets of designers did them three
> times. ... The fundamental wayfinding problem at Penn
> Station lies in the fact that each of these entities manages
> its own signs, usually without consulting the others. As a
> result, the station essentially has three different systems
> of signage.
>
> This is a crazy way to manage information at the biggest
> railway station in the country. The user experiences Penn
> Station as one place. But the current system assumes that the
> user experiences the station as three distinct spaces.
> ...
> Each of these three sign systems has strengths and
> weaknesses. But the problems with Penn Station are not,
[START HERE]
> fundamentally, design problems. They're power problems. If
> the authority in Penn Station were centralized‹or if Amtrak
> stepped up to its role as landlord and decided to address the
> station's wayfinding problems with a unified sign system‹the
> place could be made less confusing. Mike Gallagher, Amtrak's
> Superintendent of Passenger Services for Penn, pointed out
> via e-mail that while each tenant manages its own signs, Penn
> has "ample signage throughout the station, directing
> passengers to the area of the station they are looking to
> travel from." But having lots of signs is a pale substitute
> for having signs that really speak to one another.
>
[END HERE]
> Penn Station is a remarkably challenging environment for
> wayfinding. But it's a useful place to examine, because it
> highlights the single most crucial thing a wayfinding
> designer must do: think about the user and understand how he
> will perceive a space. When signs are good, and you pay
> attention to them, you can sense the level of thought that
> went into them. Someone, somewhere, anticipated the journey
> you are on, and the information you would need. At Penn
> Station as a whole, it's no one's job to think about how
> you'll get where you're going. And you can tell.
> -----
>
> I do not see it there. Not saying the off-topic points you are focusing on
> are not at the link, but certainly was not my "goal post". Here: my
> comments:
It was basically your entire second paragraph.
> -----
> Multiple user interfaces... perhaps all good, but not
> consistent with one another. And it makes for a mess.
>
> If you can understand the problem with Penn Station signage,
> you can likely understand more about the problems with the
> UIs of the various desktop Linux distros. So what could be
> done to make the Penn Station signage better? What can be
> done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and
> other such distros better?
>
> Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
> to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
> understand and learn from it.
> -----
>
> The answer to the question as to what can be done to make the systems better
> is obvious by the way: greater consistency in the system. Clearly.
>
> And you sometimes seem to grasp that. Not sure if you always do... with all
> your fighting over... um... what are you fighting about? I know you want to
> move goal posts and are whining I will not follow... but anything relevant?
Uhh, you're insane. I posted that answer, then YOU started arguing
about it.
> >>> That does not apply to Linux because there is no equivalent of Amtrak.
>
> >> Good! You understand the solution you keep focusing on will not work with
> >> OSS. But I think you did before... odd to bring it up again.
>
> > I bring it up, because you quoted the story, which was the whole
> > purpose of this thread.
>
> As noted: you did not understand the metaphor. No big deal. Do you now?
The entire second paragraph was dedicated to the solution. The entire
article (if you followed the link) was about the problem and the
subsequent easy solution.
> >>> I have said that numerous times now.
>
> >> Right! You keep bringing it up over and over and over, even though we both
> >> agree it would not work for OSS. It is odd.
>
> > Great, then if you have any understanding of what a metaphor is, you
> > will realize that the article is not a metaphor for what is going on
> > in Linux.
>
> Do you see your error yet in not understanding the relevant similarities?
> Hint: multiple UIs in one system.
>
> This is not complex.
Apparently metaphors are too complex for you though.
> >>> That's why your metaphor doesn't apply in this case.
>
> >> Ah, you think your odd obsession with the *solution* in the Penn Station
> >> case invalidates the metaphor of the problem. OK... but how? I do not see
> >> that.
>
> > Haha so it's the "metaphor of the problem" now and not a "metaphor of
> > signs?" You keep saying that the article is a metaphor for what is
> > going on in Linux, but it can't be, as you just said, because there is
> > no Amtrak in Linux.
>
> You cannot get the metaphor without Amtrak in Linux. That is funny.
That is what a metaphor is.
> >>> If you want to talk about other solutions, then go ahead. I personally have
> >>> none, but you certainly act like you can solve this problem.
>
> >> Like *I* can? What? Over the years I have made it clear that the idea of
> >> others in COLA that I create my own distro to solve the problem is a silly
> >> one. But above you talk about collaboration as a solution... but now say
> >> you have no ideas for a solution.
>
> > "Other" being the key word of "other solutions." I personally have
> > none [no other solutions, no *other* solutions, no OTHER solutions].
> > Read.
>
> I thought you were talking about other solutions than an authority... but
> not worth going back in the thread to check. I think we both agree that
> collaboration is the solution.
>
> We agree: and you still want to argue. You are funny.
Right... since you're the one who questioned my collaboration answer
in the first place.
> >> Maybe as we talk about this some more you will gain a more complete view of
> >> your opinions.
>
> >>> If you want to talk about other solutions though, it's pointless to bring up
> >>> this story.
>
> >> The fact you did not get the metaphor, and this think it is pointless, is
> >> not in contention.
>
> > You do not understand what a metaphor is.
>
> Ah, grade school insult time for you. OK.
What started as an insult is clearly becoming fact.
Snit
f24afd3e-2752-4823...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
1:55 PM:
For crying out loud! You have made the rather silly claim that I do not
know what an metaphor is, and here you are showing you have no idea. Hint:
*ALL* metaphors fail at some level. All. If they did not, they would not
be metaphors but direct descriptions.
Now, in this case, the metaphor is clear and accurate: a system which used
multiple simultaneous (and competing!) UIs is going to confuse users. The
solution is to minimize having competing UIs.
To do this, the different people who control the UIs can all be controlled
by one authority (which is not desired, if possible, with OSS) or
collaboration (which is the only solution that you or I think has any real
chance with OSS).
The "debate" now just comes down to you not understanding the metaphor.
Whatever... I think you get the point I was making, which is far more
important to me.
See below where you work quite hard to twist these simple concepts:
>> In any case, you and I - I think - have agreed the metaphor is correct in
>> that a single system having multiple simultaneous UIs is a clear problem for
>> users... and that with desktop Linux the solution is greater collaboration.
>
> "The metaphor is correct" makes absolutely no sense in the context you
> used it. The metaphor can't be right or wrong about a topic. The
> metaphor doesn't offer an opinion about a topic.
>
> In any case, yes inconsistency is a problem, and the solution is
> collaboration. I said that from the get go before you started off on
> some crazy tangent. That is also an entirely separate problem/solution
> from the article. What created the problem, and how to solve it are
> completely different between Penn Station and Linux. Do you understand
> that much?
>
>> Then again, you have been jumping around a lot - so maybe you do not agree
>> to that. �Care to focus on the topic at hand and comment?
>>
>
> I commented to begin with. I said, "The only answer if you want
> uniformity without authority is collaboration." with my second post in
> this thread. You then went on about KDE's history and goals, and cried
> because I pointed out how you lied about articles you have read in
> response to your condescending "assuming you understand." So here we
> are, back where I was to begin with.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Well that is complete bullshit.
Snit
50e558d9-5f6f-45f5...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
2:03 PM:
...
>>> I was surprised, and asked for some info, assuming you meant some
>>> collaboration with gnome.
>>
>> Right: you made a rather bizarre assumption. �Oddly enough you keep focusing
>> on it. Weird.
>
> If they aren't going to collaborate with other desktop environments,
> then what is the point of any other collaboration they do?
Who said they would not collaborate with other desktop environments? But
when KDE was made, what others even existed? Not Gnome. But you made a
weird assumption. No big deal.
...
>>> Fucking fantastic. That's what I said from the get go. "The only
>>> answer if you want uniformity without authority is collaboration."
>>
>> Good to see we agree. �Splendid!
>
> Then why did you argue it in the first place?
Same reason you claimed penguins can fly, in other words: I never did.
>>>>>>> Should distros limit apps to their particular desktop environment now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many already try... but the ecosystem is not to a level where they can do
>>>>>> so effectively. �This is part of the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you want Microsoft or Apple to dictate how the apps must look before
>>>>> they can be installed? It's possible, but more than likely it will never
>>>>> happen.
>>>>>
>>>> Good! �Your claim that this is what I "want" is just absurd. �But when an
>>>> ecosystem is done well, users expect and demand other apps to live up to
>>>> the standards of the system - With OS X, look at Firefox and OpenOffice as
>>>> examples. �Apple did not dictate *anything*... but both groups *want* their
>>>> apps to be excellent.
>>>>
>>> How is this different in Linux?
>>>
>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. �Look at OpenOffice on different
>> distros - what system is it consistent with?
>>
> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
Of course not. Your understanding of what you read is weak.
Snit
75125e70-6fc2-4403...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
2:13 PM:
...
>>>> From the first post in the thread:
>>
>>>> � � -----
>>>> � � Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
>>>> � � to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
>>>> � � understand and learn from it.
>>>> � � -----
>>
>>>> Even with me predicting your actions, you could not help yourself. �Kinda
>>>> funny.
>>
>>> So you admitted it failed in certain areas, then argued it didn't.
>>> Somehow I don't find that surprising.
>>
>> For crying out loud! �You have made the rather silly claim that I do not
>> know what an metaphor is, and here you are showing you have no idea. �Hint:
>> *ALL* metaphors fail at some level. �All. �If they did not, they would not
>> be metaphors but direct descriptions.
>
> Well that is complete bullshit.
Do you have a counter example? Remember, one of your complaints about the
metaphor has been that Linux does not have Amtrack.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
The equivalent of Amtrack, Snit. And cc is completey correct about
that. Your metaphor/analogy sucks.
--
You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary
man could be such a fool.
~ George Orwell
Snit
Because... ???
Oh, because you and he do not like it. Face it: I have shown how in many,
many situations it is simply very bad practice to have arbitrarily
inconsistent UIs in one system. There are few if any counter examples.
You do not like this. I get that. So be it. But that does not mean the
analogy is poor... it is a good one, showing exactly what I intended it to
show.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Moshe
Anyone who has ever been to Penn Station in NYC can attest to it's
confusion factor.
Snit
6:46 AM:
>>> Do you have a counter example? Remember, one of your complaints about the
>>> metaphor has been that Linux does not have Amtrack.
>>
>> The equivalent of Amtrack, Snit. And cc is completey correct about
>> that. Your metaphor/analogy sucks.
>
> Anyone who has ever been to Penn Station in NYC can attest to it's
> confusion factor.
Which was the point. But, as predicted, some in COLA are working hard to
miss the point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
Don't you get sick and tired of making the same point over and over
again? Why don't you make peace with the idea of GNU/Linux being a
motley collage of F/OSS, and finally get it over with? Why do you put
so much time and effort in commenting on a computing environment you
don't even seriously use?
It's really amazing how you keep bragging on about this...
--
We should start referring to processes which run in the background by
their correct technical name... paenguins.
~ Kevin M. Bealer
Snit
> On 2010-03-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Moshe stated in post 8z2j9hss9cxa$.qjzo2d9o271n$.d...@40tude.net on 3/6/10
>> 6:46 AM:
>>
>>>>> Do you have a counter example? Remember, one of your complaints
>>>>> about the metaphor has been that Linux does not have Amtrack.
>>>>
>>>> The equivalent of Amtrack, Snit. And cc is completey correct about
>>>> that. Your metaphor/analogy sucks.
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever been to Penn Station in NYC can attest to it's
>>> confusion factor.
>>
>> Which was the point. But, as predicted, some in COLA are working
>> hard to miss the point.
>
> Don't you get sick and tired of making the same point over and over
> again?
You have asked that before.
> Why don't you make peace with the idea of GNU/Linux being a motley collage of
> F/OSS, and finally get it over with?
I am at peace with the problems and benefits of GNU/Linux. I am not the one
who freaks out and makes excuses when the problems are pointed out.
Now, I do admit it amuses me to see the same people make the same excuses
for desktop Linux over and over. I know they will never admit to the truth.
It is not like I expect the "advocates" to be honest. Does anyone?
> Why do you put so much time and effort in commenting on a computing
> environment you don't even seriously use?
I laugh when I use it?
> It's really amazing how you keep bragging on about this...
Bragging? How so?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> TomB stated in post 20100306091053....@usenet.drumscum.be on 3/6/10 1:14 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2010-03-05, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 2:13 PM:
>
> >> ...
> >>>>>> From the first post in the thread:
>
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>> Shall be interesting to see who in COLA goes out of their way
> >>>>>> to try to find where the analogy fails instead of trying to
> >>>>>> understand and learn from it.
> >>>>>> -----
>
> >>>>>> Even with me predicting your actions, you could not help yourself. Kinda
> >>>>>> funny.
>
> >>>>> So you admitted it failed in certain areas, then argued it didn't.
> >>>>> Somehow I don't find that surprising.
>
> >>>> For crying out loud! You have made the rather silly claim that I do not
> >>>> know what an metaphor is, and here you are showing you have no idea. Hint:
> >>>> *ALL* metaphors fail at some level. All. If they did not, they would not
> >>>> be metaphors but direct descriptions.
>
> >>> Well that is complete bullshit.
>
> >> Do you have a counter example? Remember, one of your complaints about the
> >> metaphor has been that Linux does not have Amtrack.
"sea of troubles" is a metaphor that doesn't fail.
> > The equivalent of Amtrack, Snit. And cc is completey correct about
> > that. Your metaphor/analogy sucks.
>
> Because... ???
Because it doesn't apply to what you were talking about.
> Oh, because you and he do not like it.
Like has nothing to do with it.
> Face it: I have shown how in many,
> many situations it is simply very bad practice to have arbitrarily
> inconsistent UIs in one system. There are few if any counter examples.
I'm certainly not arguing that. What we learn from your original post,
however, cannot be applied to UIs.
> You do not like this. I get that. So be it. But that does not mean the
> analogy is poor... it is a good one, showing exactly what I intended it to
> show.
>
So you intended to show that inconsistency can be easily fixed by
having an authority hammer out the inconsistencies? Great, but like I
said, and you agreed, it's just not feasible when it comes to
operating systems.
cc
> 2:03 PM:
>
> >> There is no goal for programs to go toward. Look at OpenOffice on different
> >> distros - what system is it consistent with?
>
> > Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>
> Of course not. Your understanding of what you read is weak.
When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
across all. Since you took classes on "HCI general concepts" and
"experiments in UIs" you probably know all this. It's more important
to have it completely consistent within itself and with other
applications on the same distro.
Maybe that's what you meant by "system?" You've used that word in so
many different contexts now, it's hard to tell what you're referring
to with it. But from the phrase "Look at OO on different distros"
apparently you're referring to each distro as a "system", which is why
I answered the way I did above.
Someone get Amtrak involved.
JEDIDIAH
Some kid or some independent individual developer will make something
and possibly not get every detail correct and complaint. This can happen
even with MacOS. If you give the user or developer the ability to screw
up then they will. Any standard that is simply something that is written
on a piece of paper somewhere is ultimately worthless. You can't depend
on it being enforced. That can only happen if it's enforced by the sytsem
in some way.
This is like trusting apps to "play nice" in the old System 9 days.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Snit
9c6fddfd-ebfe-45bd...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
5:39 AM:
> On Mar 5, 4:20�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 50e558d9-5f6f-45f5-a55b-fdc39e114...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
>> 2:03 PM:
>>
>>>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. �Look at OpenOffice on
>>>> different distros - what system is it consistent with?
>>>>
>>> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>>
>> Of course not. �Your understanding of what you read is weak.
>
> When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
> distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
> to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
What makes you think that? If you try to push an application designed for
one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to publish
a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
> across all.
It is not even desirable. OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. It was improved... and
now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". Much better.
> Since you took classes on "HCI general concepts" and "experiments in UIs" you
> probably know all this. It's more important to have it completely consistent
> within itself and with other applications on the same distro.
>
> Maybe that's what you meant by "system?"
A system, in the context I generally use the word, is an individual
system... generally running Windows or OS X or some distro of Linux with
minimal modifications by a user.
> You've used that word in so many different contexts now, it's hard to tell
> what you're referring to with it.
Where have I used it to mean something other than what I say, above?
> But from the phrase "Look at OO on different distros" apparently you're
> referring to each distro as a "system", which is why I answered the way I did
> above.
>
>
> Someone get Amtrak involved.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8e4db42a-0256-4584...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
5:22 AM:
>
>>> The equivalent of Amtrack, Snit. And cc is completey correct about
>>> that. Your metaphor/analogy sucks.
>>
>> Because... ???
>
> Because it doesn't apply to what you were talking about.
In both cases there are competing and inconsistent UIs in one system.
I know, this is not a concept you want to talk about... you prefer to change
the topic. Ok. Fine. This just supports my view... remember, I predicted
in my first post that folks on COLA would work to avoid the concept. You
are just proving me right.
>> Oh, because you and he do not like it. �
>
> Like has nothing to do with it.
>
>> Face it: I have shown how in many,
>> many situations it is simply very bad practice to have arbitrarily
>> inconsistent UIs in one system. �There are few if any counter examples.
>
> I'm certainly not arguing that. What we learn from your original post,
> however, cannot be applied to UIs.
Well, you do not want to apply it. I get that. And predicted it.
>> You do not like this. �I get that. �So be it. �But that does not mean the
>> analogy is poor... it is a good one, showing exactly what I intended it to
>> show.
>
> So you intended to show that inconsistency can be easily fixed by
> having an authority hammer out the inconsistencies? Great, but like I
> said, and you agreed, it's just not feasible when it comes to
> operating systems.
See: you are working hard to avoid the actual concepts being discussed. Asp
predicted. Not like you are being creative.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>>> Face it: I have shown how in many,
>>> many situations it is simply very bad practice to have arbitrarily
>>> inconsistent UIs in one system. �There are few if any counter examples.
...
>> So you intended to show that inconsistency can be easily fixed by
>> having an authority hammer out the inconsistencies? Great, but like I
>> said, and you agreed, it's just not feasible when it comes to
>> operating systems.
>
> Some kid or some independent individual developer will make something
> and possibly not get every detail correct and complaint. This can happen
> even with MacOS.
Heck, professional programs get it wrong, even on OS X. Sure.
> If you give the user or developer the ability to screw up then they will. Any
> standard that is simply something that is written on a piece of paper
> somewhere is ultimately worthless.
Well, then, the standards KDE and Gnome have made are, to you, worthless.
Lovely.
I think they have value. And I have explained it in detail.
> You can't depend on it being enforced. That
> can only happen if it's enforced by the sytsem in some way.
>
> This is like trusting apps to "play nice" in the old System 9 days.
So you think it would take force for KDE to have been made? But no such
force was required! None was used!
You think it would take force to get OpenOffice and Firefox developers to
make their programs have better UIs on OS X. But they did make their
products have better UIs.
The facts do not back up your claims.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
So you're retracting your previous statement that all metaphors fail?
cc
> 5:39 AM:
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:20 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 50e558d9-5f6f-45f5-a55b-fdc39e114...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
> >> 2:03 PM:
>
> >>>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. Look at OpenOffice on
> >>>> different distros - what system is it consistent with?
>
> >>> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>
> >> Of course not. Your understanding of what you read is weak.
>
> > When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
> > distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
> > to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
>
> What makes you think that? If you try to push an application designed for
> one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
> To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to publish
> a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
Well there's another analogy that fails. But let's not discuss that,
as it's irrelevant. You're basically flip flopping your views. On the
one hand OO is inconsistent across distros, which you say is bad. On
the other hand, to push an application designed for one desktop
environment to another will not fit, so it's not bad, but in fact
unavoidable. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
> > If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
> > thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
> > unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
> > across all.
>
> It is not even desirable. OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. It was improved... and
> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". Much better.
So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
It's the same concept.
Snit
1c9a097e-edb5-4fc6...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
12:18 PM:
What relevant comment did I snip? Any? I bet not!
> So you're retracting your previous statement that all metaphors fail?
Gee, you have not said a word about how the metaphor shows, as I said it
does, the downsides of a mixing of UIs in a single system. Wish I could
have predicted that. :)
Oh, and yes, by the very nature of metaphors, they *all* fail when
misunderstood and pushed to an extreme. Before you made up a claim about me
not understanding metaphors, but then you decided to show you do not
understand them. The irony was funny. Did you do it on purpose? If so,
kudos to you for the sense of humor!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
b14b59ac-3ef6-43d5...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
12:24 PM:
> On Mar 8, 12:15�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 9c6fddfd-ebfe-45bd-a322-3f3916dfd...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
>> 5:39 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 4:20�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> cc stated in post
>>>> 50e558d9-5f6f-45f5-a55b-fdc39e114...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
>>>> 2:03 PM:
>>
>>>>>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. �Look at OpenOffice on
>>>>>> different distros - what system is it consistent with?
>>
>>>>> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>>
>>>> Of course not. �Your understanding of what you read is weak.
>>
>>> When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
>>> distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
>>> to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
>>
>> What makes you think that? �If you try to push an application designed for
>> one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
>> To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to publish
>> a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
>
> Well there's another analogy that fails.
Yet you cannot explain why it fails. OK.
> But let's not discuss that, as it's irrelevant. You're basically flip flopping
> your views.
Nope. Not even a little. But you are going to *pretend* so in order to
avoid the topic of the thread - the problem with multiple UIs in one system.
Gee, what a shock!
> On the one hand OO is inconsistent across distros, which you say
> is bad.
Where did I say that was bad?
> On the other hand, to push an application designed for one desktop
> environment to another will not fit, so it's not bad, but in fact unavoidable.
> So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
I accept you have no understanding of what you read. Here, let me tell you
again, though we both know you will work hard to misunderstand it:
Programs should be designed to work on the systems they will be used on.
Systems should be, to the point reasonably possible, consistent from one
program to another (or, more accurately, they should reduce arbitrary
inconsistency).
One challenge of desktop Linux is that even with *all* distros put together,
the user base is relatively tiny - and if you look at any one distro it is,
of course, much less. For developers to be expected to not only write
software for desktop Linux but for specific distros or even anything more
than major desktop environments is a bit much... and users of desktop Linux
distros are not able to reasonably get a system which is as good, in the
area of consistency, as users of other OSs (Windows and OS X, specifically).
These concepts are not hard... and have been explained repeatedly. This
thread was started to show an example of the detrimental affects of
arbitrary inconsistency... but, as predicted, you will not actually discuss
that. You want to move goal posts and run from that idea.
No problem - you are just proving me correct.
>>> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>>> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>>> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>>> across all.
>>
>> It is not even desirable. �OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
>> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. �It was improved... and
>
>> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". �Much better.
>
> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
> It's the same concept.
So? I think it would be lovely if developers could make their products work
great on (and be mostly consistent with) both KDE and Gnome... which would
cover many distros. The fact that KDE and Gnome exist and are relatively
well supported at least narrows the targets for developers.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Its clear you are not sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as
usually sharp as you seems to totally miss the importance of consistent
UIs.
>
>> > If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>> > thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>> > unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>> > across all.
>>
>> It is not even desirable. OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
>> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. It was improved... and
>> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". Much better.
>
> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
> It's the same concept.
Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
that same environment.
I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
your views.
Snit
12:44 PM:
...
>>>>>>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. �Look at OpenOffice on
>>>>>>> different distros - what system is it consistent with?
>>>
>>>>>> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>>>
>>>>> Of course not. �Your understanding of what you read is weak.
>>>
>>>> When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
>>>> distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
>>>> to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that? �If you try to push an application designed for
>>> one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
>>> To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to publish
>>> a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
>>
>> Well there's another analogy that fails. But let's not discuss that,
>> as it's irrelevant. You're basically flip flopping your views. On the
>> one hand OO is inconsistent across distros, which you say is bad. On
>> the other hand, to push an application designed for one desktop
>> environment to another will not fit, so it's not bad, but in fact
>> unavoidable. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
>
> Its clear you are not sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as
> usually sharp as you seems to totally miss the importance of consistent
> UIs.
If he really was missing it, would he be avoiding the topic so strongly? I
doubt it. He just does not want to talk about it, so he changes the topic
repeatedly.
>
>>
>>>> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>>>> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>>>> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>>>> across all.
>>>
>>> It is not even desirable. �OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
>>> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. �It was improved... and
>>> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". �Much better.
>>
>> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
>> It's the same concept.
>
> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
> another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
> that same environment.
Exactly. He is pushing a straw man.
> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
> your views.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
> > So you're retracting your previous statement that all metaphors fail?
>
> Gee, you have not said a word about how the metaphor shows, as I said it
> does, the downsides of a mixing of UIs in a single system. Wish I could
> have predicted that. :)
The metaphor shows that the downsides of mixuing UIs in a single
system are solved by having an authority.
> Oh, and yes, by the very nature of metaphors, they *all* fail when
> misunderstood and pushed to an extreme. Before you made up a claim about me
> not understanding metaphors, but then you decided to show you do not
> understand them. The irony was funny. Did you do it on purpose? If so,
> kudos to you for the sense of humor!
>
So, first they all failed, now they all fail when misunderstood? What
great insight. You have failed to understand the implications of what
you posted.
cc
> 12:24 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 12:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 9c6fddfd-ebfe-45bd-a322-3f3916dfd...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
> >> 5:39 AM:
>
> >>> On Mar 5, 4:20 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> cc stated in post
> >>>> 50e558d9-5f6f-45f5-a55b-fdc39e114...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/5/10
> >>>> 2:03 PM:
>
> >>>>>> There is no goal for programs to go toward. Look at OpenOffice on
> >>>>>> different distros - what system is it consistent with?
>
> >>>>> Are you telling me Microsoft Word is consistent across XP and OS X?
>
> >>>> Of course not. Your understanding of what you read is weak.
>
> >>> When it comes to Microsoft Word, XP and OS X are nothing but different
> >>> distros. It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment)
> >>> to have applications inconsistent across different operating systems.
>
> >> What makes you think that? If you try to push an application designed for
> >> one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
> >> To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to publish
> >> a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
>
> > Well there's another analogy that fails.
>
> Yet you cannot explain why it fails. OK.
1. Nothing is stopping you from publishing a book in the same language
in all parts of the world. You can buy books in English almost
anywhere.
2. OSes are not like languages at all. Understanding one OS gives you
concepts that you can apply to other OSes. The same is not true for
all languages, just some.
> > But let's not discuss that, as it's irrelevant. You're basically flip flopping
> > your views.
>
> Nope. Not even a little. But you are going to *pretend* so in order to
> avoid the topic of the thread - the problem with multiple UIs in one system.
> Gee, what a shock!
So now the topic is multiple UIs in one system? What happened to "Look
at OpenOffice on different distros?"
> > On the one hand OO is inconsistent across distros, which you say
> > is bad.
>
> Where did I say that was bad?
"Look at OpenOffice on different distros"
> > On the other hand, to push an application designed for one desktop
> > environment to another will not fit, so it's not bad, but in fact unavoidable.
> > So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
>
> I accept you have no understanding of what you read. Here, let me tell you
> again, though we both know you will work hard to misunderstand it:
>
> Programs should be designed to work on the systems they will be used on.
> Systems should be, to the point reasonably possible, consistent from one
> program to another (or, more accurately, they should reduce arbitrary
> inconsistency).
No shit.
> One challenge of desktop Linux is that even with *all* distros put together,
> the user base is relatively tiny - and if you look at any one distro it is,
> of course, much less. For developers to be expected to not only write
> software for desktop Linux but for specific distros or even anything more
> than major desktop environments is a bit much... and users of desktop Linux
> distros are not able to reasonably get a system which is as good, in the
> area of consistency, as users of other OSs (Windows and OS X, specifically).
Are you blaming that on the distros, or the developers? I fail to see
how apps written for KDE are inconsistent on other distros that use
KDE, assuming they were consistent in the first place. If they were
not consistent in the first place, then that's the developers fault.
> These concepts are not hard... and have been explained repeatedly. This
> thread was started to show an example of the detrimental affects of
> arbitrary inconsistency... but, as predicted, you will not actually discuss
> that. You want to move goal posts and run from that idea.
>
> No problem - you are just proving me correct.
Ahh yes, I'm the one moving goal posts.
cc
Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important? In fact
you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at
the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different
operating systems."
> >> > If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
> >> > thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
> >> > unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
> >> > across all.
>
> >> It is not even desirable. OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
> >> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. It was improved... and
> >> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". Much better.
>
> > So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
> > It's the same concept.
>
> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
> another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
> that same environment.
Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
> your views.
You're confusing my argument with a stupid metaphor and a inconsistent
statement on where UIs should be consistent as arguing with a single
poster.
cc
To continue, from the original post: "If you can understand the
problem with Penn Station signage, you can likely understand more
about the problems with the UIs of the various desktop Linux distros.
So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better? What
can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
such distros better?" It seems clear to me that we were talking about
consistency across the "various desktop Linux distros" to begin with.
That is, until recently when it seems we were talking about
consistency in any particular given distro, which is a whole other
problem.
Snit
0f9d202e-5bea-47b9...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
2:11 PM:
> On Mar 8, 4:06�pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 2:44�pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
>>> another WM/DE �*IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
>>> that same environment.
>>
>> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
>>
>
> To continue, from the original post: "If you can understand the
> problem with Penn Station signage, you can likely understand more
> about the problems with the UIs of the various desktop Linux distros.
> So what could be done to make the Penn Station signage better? What
> can be done to make the user interfaces of Ubuntu and PCLOS and other
> such distros better?" It seems clear to me that we were talking about
> consistency across the "various desktop Linux distros" to begin with.
Nope. Internal consistency. Within a system. Not system to system.
Got it now?
> That is, until recently when it seems we were talking about
> consistency in any particular given distro, which is a whole other
> problem.
Hey, at least you now understand! Nobody has been talking about consistency
from one system to another... nobody other than you that is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
ff40eafd-959f-48e0...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
2:06 PM:
...
>> Its clear you are not sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as
>> usually sharp as you seems to totally miss the importance of consistent
>> UIs.
>
>
> Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important?
Who said you talked about it at all? You keep avoiding the topic.
> In fact you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at
> the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different operating
> systems."
And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
system to consistency system to system. You keep moving the topic away from
internal consistency within a system.
>>>>> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>>>>> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>>>>> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>>>>> across all.
>>>>>
>>>> It is not even desirable. �OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like
>>>> the Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. �It was
>>>> improved... and now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". �Much better.
>>>>
>>> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros? It's
>>> the same concept.
>>>
>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
>> another WM/DE �*IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in that
>> same environment.
>>
> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
It is not consistency with each of the systems it is on. The problem is it
*is* relatively consistent from one system to the next, no matter what the
standards of that system is. You completely misunderstood my comment. As I
have been noting, you have been working really hard to misunderstand and
twist everything you read.
Which is what I predicted.
>> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
>> your views.
>
> You're confusing my argument with a stupid metaphor and a inconsistent
> statement on where UIs should be consistent as arguing with a single
> poster.
How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is "stupid"?
Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2c9152be-399d-400c...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
2:03 PM:
...
>>>> What makes you think that? If you try to push an application designed for
>>>> one OS onto another, your application will not fit into that environment.
>>>> To insist they be the same is much like saying you should be able to
>>>> publish
>>>> a book in the same language in all parts of the world.
>>
>>> Well there's another analogy that fails.
>>
>> Yet you cannot explain why it fails. OK.
>
> 1. Nothing is stopping you from publishing a book in the same language
> in all parts of the world. You can buy books in English almost
> anywhere.
See how hard you work to try to misunderstand. I will grant you, you have a
gift. :)
> 2. OSes are not like languages at all. Understanding one OS gives you
> concepts that you can apply to other OSes. The same is not true for
> all languages, just some.
My oh my... you work hard to misunderstand.
There are places where the metaphor is not very good... a better one would
to have talked about a book where every chapter was a different language.
But you did not even get that.
>>> But let's not discuss that, as it's irrelevant. You're basically flip
>>> flopping your views.
>>>
>> Nope. Not even a little. 嚙畿ut you are going to *pretend* so in order to avoid
>> the topic of the thread - the problem with multiple UIs in one system. Gee,
>> what a shock!
>>
> So now the topic is multiple UIs in one system?
When was it anything different?
> What happened to "Look at OpenOffice on different distros?"
It is not consistent with the different distros... it cannot be while it is
consistent from one to the next. Hence the problem. The developers, if
they wanted to make it have a great UI for desktop Linux, at a minimum would
need a KDE and a Gnome version.
>>> On the one hand OO is inconsistent across distros, which you say
>>> is bad.
>>
>> Where did I say that was bad?
>
> "Look at OpenOffice on different distros"
Your misunderstanding has been explained. Do you get it now? My noting
that OO is not consistent with all of the distros it is on is nothing like
your claim that I said it is bad that it is inconsistent across distros.
You got it completely backwards.
>>> On the other hand, to push an application designed for one desktop
>>> environment to another will not fit, so it's not bad, but in fact
>>> unavoidable. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
>>>
>> I accept you have no understanding of what you read. Here, let me tell you
>> again, though we both know you will work hard to misunderstand it:
>>
>> Programs should be designed to work on the systems they will be used on.
>> Systems should be, to the point reasonably possible, consistent from one
>> program to another (or, more accurately, they should reduce arbitrary
>> inconsistency).
>>
> No shit.
If you get this, what are you arguing against?
>> One challenge of desktop Linux is that even with *all* distros put together,
>> the user base is relatively tiny - and if you look at any one distro it is,
>> of course, much less. 嚙瘤or developers to be expected to not only write
>> software for desktop Linux but for specific distros or even anything more
>> than major desktop environments is a bit much... and users of desktop Linux
>> distros are not able to reasonably get a system which is as good, in the
>> area of consistency, as users of other OSs (Windows and OS X, specifically).
>
> Are you blaming that on the distros, or the developers? I fail to see
> how apps written for KDE are inconsistent on other distros that use
> KDE, assuming they were consistent in the first place. If they were
> not consistent in the first place, then that's the developers fault.
I am not placing blame. I am noting where there are significant challenges
for the OSS ecosystem. Why does someone need to be blamed?
>> These concepts are not hard... and have been explained repeatedly. 嚙確his
>> thread was started to show an example of the detrimental affects of
>> arbitrary inconsistency... but, as predicted, you will not actually discuss
>> that. 嚙磐ou want to move goal posts and run from that idea.
>>
>> No problem - you are just proving me correct.
>
> Ahh yes, I'm the one moving goal posts.
Correct.
>>>>> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>>>>> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>>>>> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>>>>> across all.
>>
>>>> It is not even desirable. OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
>>>> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. It was improved... and
>
>>
>>>> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". Much better.
>>
>>> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
>>> It's the same concept.
>>
>> So? 嚙瘢 think it would be lovely if developers could make their products work
>> great on (and be mostly consistent with) both KDE and Gnome... which would
>> cover many distros. 嚙確he fact that KDE and Gnome exist and are relatively
>> well supported at least narrows the targets for developers.
>>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
18d6f2a8-1950-4f1e...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
1:57 PM:
...
>>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
>>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>>
>> What relevant comment did I snip? �ｿｽAny? �ｿｽI bet not!
>
>
> You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
are. That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
But I will be kind and talk about your rather silly side issue: troubles are
not in seas... at least not all of them. Even if they were, the metaphor is
comparing a massive amount of water with a massive amount of troubles... but
you cannot treat troubles and water alike. Where is a trouble boat? Are
all troubles salty?
The very idea of metaphor is you are comparing one thing to another... if
the two things are exactly alike it is not a metaphor but a direct
description.
>>> So you're retracting your previous statement that all metaphors fail?
>>
>> Gee, you have not said a word about how the metaphor shows, as I said it
>> does, the downsides of a mixing of UIs in a single system. �ｿｽWish I could
>> have predicted that. �ｿｽ:)
>
> The metaphor shows that the downsides of mixuing UIs in a single
> system are solved by having an authority.
I understand that is all you are able to get from the metaphor. Do you
understand I am able to get more out of it?
>> Oh, and yes, by the very nature of metaphors, they *all* fail when
>> misunderstood and pushed to an extreme. �ｿｽBefore you made up a claim about me
>> not understanding metaphors, but then you decided to show you do not
>> understand them. �ｿｽThe irony was funny. �ｿｽDid you do it on purpose? �ｿｽIf so,
>> kudos to you for the sense of humor!
>
> So, first they all failed, now they all fail when misunderstood? What
> great insight. You have failed to understand the implications of what
> you posted.
Your misunderstanding, which is almost certainly purposeful, is not a sign
of weakness from me.
Again: the concept is easy - having a single system with multiple UIs leads
to bad things.
It amazes me how controversial this simple concept is... in COLA. It is not
controversial in most places.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 1:57 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
> >>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>
>
> > You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
>
> For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
> and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
> are. That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
> stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
You've lost your mind. Go back and read my first two posts. I answered
your questions, and we seemed to be in general agreement. Then you
started arguing random points that YOU brought up. Then you say, "see
I told you that you'd argue over how this metaphor fails," when you
were just arguing that it never failed in the first place. When I
pointed that out, you go ahead and mention that all metaphors fail.
When I prove you wrong, you stop wanting to debate what is and isn't a
metaphor. You've lead this discussion the entire way. Alternately
talking about a single distro, or multiple distros, or what is and
isn't a metaphor, just to say "ahh, see you don't understand." You
alternately agree with what I say, then disagree, almost on a whim,
always with no support.
Hadron says I'm arguing purely based on my prejudices against you, but
I think anyone who goes back and reads from the beginning can see it's
quite the opposite. You argue with me using the exact same arguments I
make days earlier, then change the goalposts and argue again, all the
while claiming I don't understand. Your poorly chosen "metaphor" has
now become a metaphor for everything under the sun. I'm assuming it
also applies to the "Shaw Evolutionary Theory."
So my basic stance still stands. Your "metaphor" (or analogy, or
whatever it is you want to refer to it as) isn't a metaphor for Linux.
Not all metaphors fail, only bad ones like yours. Inconsistency in a
single desktop environment is bad, but it's up to the developers to
fix it because there is no single authority on and desktop
environment, free or otherwise, to prevent it. Inconsistency across
multiple desktop environments is bad, but can't really be helped
because there is no authority and collaboration is damn near
impossible. I don't feel a need to respond to any of the other posts,
since they are either repetitious with no support, or the complete
opposite of what you said earlier. If you wish to continue this
discussion, feel free to respond to this message.
Snit
f6ed16f6-d860-488d...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
4:42 PM:
> On Mar 8, 5:07�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 18d6f2a8-1950-4f1e-88b8-b47dc2caa...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
>> 1:57 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
>
>>>>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>>
>>>> What relevant comment did I snip? �Any? �I bet not!
>>
>>> You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
>>
>> For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
>> and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
>> are. �That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
>> stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
>
> You've lost your mind.
And you are now snipping content and making grade school insults.
Interesting.
What I have been saying is easy to understand. To summarize:
* Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
matter).
* The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
problems. The solution, to move to a situation where a single
system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
different. For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
metaphor bad.
* The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
description, not a metaphor.
* I have not said one word in this thread about how programs
should be consistent from one system to another. I have,
in fact, noted how programs should match the system they
are on.
Look at how bent out of shape you get over this... and how you
mischaracterize it, claiming I have said things contrary to the above,
saying I have moved goal posts, bringing up the Shaw Evolutionary Model (a
topic you lied about in the past).
> Go back and read my first two posts. I answered your questions, and we seemed
> to be in general agreement. Then you started arguing random points that YOU
> brought up. Then you say, "see I told you that you'd argue over how this
> metaphor fails," when you were just arguing that it never failed in the first
> place. When I pointed that out, you go ahead and mention that all metaphors
> fail. When I prove you wrong, you stop wanting to debate what is and isn't a
> metaphor. You've lead this discussion the entire way. Alternately talking
> about a single distro, or multiple distros, or what is and isn't a metaphor,
> just to say "ahh, see you don't understand." You alternately agree with what I
> say, then disagree, almost on a whim, always with no support.
>
> Hadron says I'm arguing purely based on my prejudices against you, but
> I think anyone who goes back and reads from the beginning can see it's
> quite the opposite. You argue with me using the exact same arguments I
> make days earlier, then change the goalposts and argue again, all the
> while claiming I don't understand. Your poorly chosen "metaphor" has
> now become a metaphor for everything under the sun. I'm assuming it
> also applies to the "Shaw Evolutionary Theory."
>
> So my basic stance still stands. Your "metaphor" (or analogy, or
> whatever it is you want to refer to it as) isn't a metaphor for Linux.
> Not all metaphors fail, only bad ones like yours. Inconsistency in a
> single desktop environment is bad
Which has been my primary point (the metaphor debate being in response to
your off topic silliness). So here you are, claiming to *agree* with the
point I was making and yet you feel the need to argue against me. Bizarre.
Just what do you think you are arguing against?
> , but it's up to the developers to fix it because there is no single authority
> on and desktop environment, free or otherwise, to prevent it.
Well, developers and users... they should help in reporting and encouraging.
But, sure, you basically are saying you agree with me there, too.
> Inconsistency across multiple desktop environments is bad, but can't really be
> helped because there is no authority and collaboration is damn near
> impossible. I don't feel a need to respond to any of the other posts, since
> they are either repetitious with no support, or the complete opposite of what
> you said earlier. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to
> respond to this message.
See how you claim I have flip-flopped but you offer not a shred of evidence.
It is this type of unsupported accusations that make you hard to take
seriously.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:07 PM:
> cc stated in post
> 18d6f2a8-1950-4f1e...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
> 1:57 PM:
>
> ...
>
>>>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
>>>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>>>
>>> What relevant comment did I snip? �Any? �I bet not!
>>
>>
>> You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
>
> For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
> and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
> are. That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
> stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
>
> But I will be kind and talk about your rather silly side issue: troubles are
> not in seas... at least not all of them. Even if they were, the metaphor is
> comparing a massive amount of water with a massive amount of troubles... but
> you cannot treat troubles and water alike. Where is a trouble boat? Are
> all troubles salty?
In your response you made no comment about this. How predictable. Your
claim about metaphors was shot down... and you just snipped.
> The very idea of metaphor is you are comparing one thing to another... if
> the two things are exactly alike it is not a metaphor but a direct
> description.
>
>>>> So you're retracting your previous statement that all metaphors fail?
>>>
>>> Gee, you have not said a word about how the metaphor shows, as I said it
>>> does, the downsides of a mixing of UIs in a single system. �Wish I could
>>> have predicted that. �:)
>>
>> The metaphor shows that the downsides of mixuing UIs in a single
>> system are solved by having an authority.
>
> I understand that is all you are able to get from the metaphor. Do you
> understand I am able to get more out of it?
No response from you. I suspect you do but are not willing to admit to it.
>>> Oh, and yes, by the very nature of metaphors, they *all* fail when
>>> misunderstood and pushed to an extreme. �Before you made up a claim about me
>>> not understanding metaphors, but then you decided to show you do not
>>> understand them. �The irony was funny. �Did you do it on purpose? �If so,
>>> kudos to you for the sense of humor!
>>
>> So, first they all failed, now they all fail when misunderstood? What
>> great insight. You have failed to understand the implications of what
>> you posted.
>
> Your misunderstanding, which is almost certainly purposeful, is not a sign
> of weakness from me.
>
> Again: the concept is easy - having a single system with multiple UIs leads
> to bad things.
Which you have now claimed to agree with me on. So what point are you
debating against?
Snit
2:55 PM:
...
>> Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important?
>>
> Who said you talked about it at all? You keep avoiding the topic.
>
>> In fact you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable
>> at the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different operating
>> systems."
>>
> And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
> system to consistency system to system. You keep moving the topic away from
> internal consistency within a system.
You failed to comment on this. Why?
Oh, that is right, so you can snip all content and accuse me of doing what I
quote you doing.
So be it, you do not want to admit to your actions. Can you at least stop
accusing me of things you cannot show me doing?
...
>>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
>>> another WM/DE �*IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
>>> that same environment.
>>>
>> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
>>
> It is not consistency with each of the systems it is on. The problem is it
> *is* relatively consistent from one system to the next, no matter what the
> standards of that system is. You completely misunderstood my comment. As I
> have been noting, you have been working really hard to misunderstand and twist
> everything you read.
>
> Which is what I predicted.
Have you understood yet? I really want to know. Or will you just dodge?
>
>>> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
>>> your views.
>>
>> You're confusing my argument with a stupid metaphor and a inconsistent
>> statement on where UIs should be consistent as arguing with a single
>> poster.
>
> How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is "stupid"?
> Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
> You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
Do you understand this yet?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> Snit stated in post C7BAC322.67EB8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/10
> 3:07 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > cc stated in post
> > 1:57 PM:
>
> > ...
>
> >>>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
> >>>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>
> >>> What relevant comment did I snip? Any? I bet not!
>
> >> You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
>
> > For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
> > and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
> > are. That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
> > stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
>
> > But I will be kind and talk about your rather silly side issue: troubles are
> > not in seas... at least not all of them. Even if they were, the metaphor is
> > comparing a massive amount of water with a massive amount of troubles... but
> > you cannot treat troubles and water alike. Where is a trouble boat? Are
> > all troubles salty?
>
> In your response you made no comment about this. How predictable. Your
> claim about metaphors was shot down... and you just snipped.
>
Haha seriously? The metaphor fails because troubles are not all in
seas? You're seriously insane. That would be like me saying your
metaphor fails because Linux is not a train station. That's not why it
fails. You obviously have no idea what a metaphor is. I can't believe
I missed this before.
cc
> Snit stated in post C7BAC063.67EA1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/10
> 2:55 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important?
>
> > Who said you talked about it at all? You keep avoiding the topic.
>
> >> In fact you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable
> >> at the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different operating
> >> systems."
>
> > And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
> > system to consistency system to system. You keep moving the topic away from
> > internal consistency within a system.
>
> You failed to comment on this. Why?
Because I was answering Hadron's question. Your comment is irrelevant
in the context.
> Oh, that is right, so you can snip all content and accuse me of doing what I
> quote you doing.
>
> So be it, you do not want to admit to your actions. Can you at least stop
> accusing me of things you cannot show me doing?
>
This entire thread shows you flip flopping all around. Read it. Do you
need a link to this thread again, or can you find it?
>
> >>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
> >>> another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
> >>> that same environment.
>
> >> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
>
> > It is not consistency with each of the systems it is on. The problem is it
> > *is* relatively consistent from one system to the next, no matter what the
> > standards of that system is. You completely misunderstood my comment. As I
> > have been noting, you have been working really hard to misunderstand and twist
> > everything you read.
>
> > Which is what I predicted.
>
> Have you understood yet? I really want to know. Or will you just dodge?
>
I understand you want so hard for me to be wrong about something, so
you keep changing what we're talking about. I understand you don't
know what a metaphor is, and think "sea of troubles" fails because not
all troubles are in seas. Which is in fact hilarious. Very hilarious.
So hilarious that I don't even care about you flip flopping your
views. Answer your silly questions however you want, you'll just argue
what I put anyway.
>
> >>> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
> >>> your views.
>
> >> You're confusing my argument with a stupid metaphor and a inconsistent
> >> statement on where UIs should be consistent as arguing with a single
> >> poster.
>
> > How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is "stupid"?
> > Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
> > You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
>
> Do you understand this yet?
>
I don't understand metaphors now? You just said "sea of troubles"
fails because not all troubles are in seas. That isn't even what the
metaphor means. I still can't stop laughing about that.
Your point of different UIs in one system came up much later. Your
"metaphor" doesn't apply. I understand that you so desperately have to
be right in this, but I just can't let your "sea of troubles"
explanation go. I simply can't.
Snit
28e2b09c-f760-4951...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
8:07 PM:
> On Mar 8, 6:55�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Snit stated in post C7BAC322.67EB8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/10
>> 3:07 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> cc stated in post
>>> 18d6f2a8-1950-4f1e-88b8-b47dc2caa...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
>>> 1:57 PM:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>>>> Same old arguments without anything to back it up. Very uninteresting.
>>>>>> What is interesting is how you snipped my metaphor that doesn't fail.
>
>>
>>>>> What relevant comment did I snip? Any? I bet not!
>>
>>>> You said all metaphors fail. "sea of troubles" does not.
>>
>>> For crying out loud... your complaint against my point dealing with Linux
>>> and the OSS ecosystem comes down to you wanting to debate what metaphors
>>> are. �That is silly... but you are proving me right that you do not want to
>>> stay on the topic of systems having multiple UIs.
>>
>>> But I will be kind and talk about your rather silly side issue: troubles are
>>> not in seas... at least not all of them. �Even if they were, the metaphor is
>>> comparing a massive amount of water with a massive amount of troubles... but
>
>>> you cannot treat troubles and water alike. �Where is a trouble boat? �Are
>>> all troubles salty?
>>
>> In your response you made no comment about this. �How predictable. �Your
>> claim about metaphors was shot down... and you just snipped.
>>
>
> Haha seriously?
Yes. You did not previously respond to my comments which shot down your
claim.
> The metaphor fails because troubles are not all in seas? You're seriously
> insane.
Do you think you really have a "sea" of troubles? A sea is a big body of
water... the metaphor falls apart very quickly.
> That would be like me saying your metaphor fails because Linux is not
> a train station. That's not why it fails. You obviously have no idea what a
> metaphor is. I can't believe I missed this before.
You do not get the metaphor of different systems being hindered by having
multiple UIs. I get it, so you think it fails. Great. Whatever.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Hahahahahahahaha. Ahhh hahahahaha. I don't even know how to respond to
that. A sea IS a big body of water, which is exactly why the metaphor
works. This is too much to take. I honestly thought you were going to
come back with the "I was just joking" routine to hide, but this is so
much better. And yes, I snipped your comment below, because if this
why you think "sea of troubles" fails, then I can't possibly convince
you that your metaphor was fucked. Because you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Snit
e6b4a8a0-d6fd-44f5...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
8:14 PM:
> On Mar 8, 7:01�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Snit stated in post C7BAC063.67EA1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/10
>> 2:55 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important?
>>
>>> Who said you talked about it at all? �You keep avoiding the topic.
>>
>>>> In fact you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable
>>>> at the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different operating
>>>> systems."
>>
>>> And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
>>> system to consistency system to system. �You keep moving the topic away from
>>> internal consistency within a system.
>>
>> You failed to comment on this. �Why?
>
> Because I was answering Hadron's question. Your comment is irrelevant
> in the context.
You - and nobody else in this conversation - keep jumping to the concept of
cross-system inconsistency. Hadron did not do so. I did not do so. You
did.
>> Oh, that is right, so you can snip all content and accuse me of doing what I
>> quote you doing. �
>>
>> So be it, you do not want to admit to your actions. Can you at least stop
>> accusing me of things you cannot show me doing?
>
> This entire thread shows you flip flopping all around. Read it. Do you
> need a link to this thread again, or can you find it?
I do not need a link to you making accusations you cannot support. Again,
the concepts I have talked about have been consistent and clear:
* Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
matter).
* The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
problems. The solution, to move to a situation where a single
system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
different. For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
metaphor bad. Fine, you do not like the metaphor. Why not
focus on the point?
* The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
description, not a metaphor.
* I have not said one word in this thread about how programs
should be consistent from one system to another. I have,
in fact, noted how programs should match the system they
are on.
>>>>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
>>>>> another WM/DE �*IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
>>>>> that same environment.
>>
>>>> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
>>
>>> It is not consistency with each of the systems it is on. �The problem is it
>>> *is* relatively consistent from one system to the next, no matter what the
>>> standards of that system is. �You completely misunderstood my comment. As I
>>>
>>> have been noting, you have been working really hard to misunderstand and
>>> twist everything you read.
>>>
>>> Which is what I predicted.
>>
>> Have you understood yet? �I really want to know. �Or will you just dodge?
>>
>
> I understand you want so hard for me to be wrong about something, so
> you keep changing what we're talking about.
See above: what do you think I have said that is in contradiction to those
things? And why do you think I *want* you to be so wrong? I would prefer
if you were not! Heck, even if you were - or merely disagreed - I would
prefer you to not just make up stories about me as you have been. Stick to
the topic, do not make personal attacks. Can you do that?
> I understand you don't know what a metaphor is, and think "sea of troubles"
> fails because not all troubles are in seas.
See: just more unsupportable personal attacks by you. Of course I know what
a metaphor is... and have described the concept to you repeatedly. This
whole "what is a metaphor" BS is a side issue you pushed... and when that
failed you made personal attacks. Oh well, it is what you did... but do not
blame me!
> Which is in fact hilarious. Very hilarious.
You make silly derogatory statements and you find them funny. OK.
Whatever.
> So hilarious that I don't even care about you flip flopping your views. Answer
> your silly questions however you want, you'll just argue what I put anyway.
See: more silly insults by you. OK, you are a funny guy. Do you have
something on topic to say?
...
>>> How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is "stupid"?
>>> Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
>>> You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
>>
>> Do you understand this yet?
>
> I don't understand metaphors now?
Have you ever? You are working hard to misunderstand them now. See below
for an example:
> You just said "sea of troubles" fails because not all troubles are in seas.
> That isn't even what the metaphor means. I still can't stop laughing about
> that.
>
> Your point of different UIs in one system came up much later.
That what? The point of the metaphor was different UIs in one system.
> Your "metaphor" doesn't apply.
You have repeatedly admitted you do not get it. OK. So?
> I understand that you so desperately have to be
> right in this, but I just can't let your "sea of troubles" explanation go. I
> simply can't.
I get you want to spew insults and laugh. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
a78ee435-bddd-4a5c...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
8:50 PM:
>>> The metaphor fails because troubles are not all in seas? You're seriously
>>> insane.
>>
>> Do you think you really have a "sea" of troubles? �A sea is a big body of
>> water... the metaphor falls apart very quickly.
>>
>
> Hahahahahahahaha. Ahhh hahahahaha. I don't even know how to respond to
> that. A sea IS a big body of water
Which is my point.
> , which is exactly why the metaphor works.
It works on a, well, metaphorical level. It fails horribly on a literal
level. As it should - it is, of course, a metaphor!
> This is too much to take. I honestly thought you were going to come back with
> the "I was just joking" routine to hide, but this is so much better. And yes,
> I snipped your comment below, because if this why you think "sea of troubles"
> fails, then I can't possibly convince you that your metaphor was fucked.
> Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
And your evidence of this is... you do not get that metaphors are not to be
taken literally. Um, whatever.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 8:14 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Snit stated in post C7BAC063.67EA1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/10
> >> 2:55 PM:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>> Where have I ever said having consistent UIs is not important?
>
> >>> Who said you talked about it at all? You keep avoiding the topic.
>
> >>>> In fact you quoted me saying, "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable
> >>>> at the moment) to have applications inconsistent across different operating
> >>>> systems."
>
> >>> And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
> >>> system to consistency system to system. You keep moving the topic away from
> >>> internal consistency within a system.
>
> >> You failed to comment on this. Why?
>
> > Because I was answering Hadron's question. Your comment is irrelevant
> > in the context.
>
> You - and nobody else in this conversation - keep jumping to the concept of
> cross-system inconsistency. Hadron did not do so. I did not do so. You
> did.
Nope, Hadron certainly didn't. My response was not about consistency,
system to system. My response was about my feelings in general towards
consistency. Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response. You
have a serious problem with context. It was all about consistent UIs,
no mention of system to system, or only on a single system. I really
don't know how to explain this to you. It's all about reading the
context. Unfortunately you snipped what Hadron wrote, but I'm sure you
can find it.
> >> Oh, that is right, so you can snip all content and accuse me of doing what I
> >> quote you doing.
>
> >> So be it, you do not want to admit to your actions. Can you at least stop
> >> accusing me of things you cannot show me doing?
>
> > This entire thread shows you flip flopping all around. Read it. Do you
> > need a link to this thread again, or can you find it?
>
> I do not need a link to you making accusations you cannot support. Again,
> the concepts I have talked about have been consistent and clear:
>
> * Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
> the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
> matter).
>
> * The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
> multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
> problems. The solution, to move to a situation where a single
> system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
> given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
> different. For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
> glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
> metaphor bad. Fine, you do not like the metaphor. Why not
> focus on the point?
I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
you focus on this point?
> * The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
> As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
> being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
> description, not a metaphor.
No, that is not what a metaphor is. I'd like to see where you got that
definition. Preferably not from Men's Journal of Health this time.
> * I have not said one word in this thread about how programs
> should be consistent from one system to another. I have,
> in fact, noted how programs should match the system they
> are on.
>
Haha, sure you didn't.
>
>
>
> >>>>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
> >>>>> another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
> >>>>> that same environment.
>
> >>>> Snit just did! "Look at OpenOffice on different distros."
>
> >>> It is not consistency with each of the systems it is on. The problem is it
> >>> *is* relatively consistent from one system to the next, no matter what the
> >>> standards of that system is. You completely misunderstood my comment. As I
>
> >>> have been noting, you have been working really hard to misunderstand and
> >>> twist everything you read.
>
> >>> Which is what I predicted.
>
> >> Have you understood yet? I really want to know. Or will you just dodge?
>
> > I understand you want so hard for me to be wrong about something, so
> > you keep changing what we're talking about.
>
> See above: what do you think I have said that is in contradiction to those
> things? And why do you think I *want* you to be so wrong? I would prefer
> if you were not! Heck, even if you were - or merely disagreed - I would
> prefer you to not just make up stories about me as you have been. Stick to
> the topic, do not make personal attacks. Can you do that?
You're the one creating the topics not me. You do not know what a
metaphor is. That is not a personal attack. That is fact based on what
you just posted.
> > I understand you don't know what a metaphor is, and think "sea of troubles"
> > fails because not all troubles are in seas.
>
> See: just more unsupportable personal attacks by you. Of course I know what
> a metaphor is... and have described the concept to you repeatedly. This
> whole "what is a metaphor" BS is a side issue you pushed... and when that
> failed you made personal attacks. Oh well, it is what you did... but do not
> blame me!
You just described something that was not a metaphor. Your definition
is FALSE. I did not push the what is a metaphor issue, you did. You
started to argue about it, and now we have a definition from you that
a metaphor compares dissimilar things, and "sea of troubles" is a
failure of a metaphor because a sea is a big body of water. You should
have just accepted what I said in the first place, you don't know what
a metaphor is.
> > Which is in fact hilarious. Very hilarious.
>
> You make silly derogatory statements and you find them funny. OK.
> Whatever.
No, you make factually incorrect statements, and I find them funny.
> > So hilarious that I don't even care about you flip flopping your views. Answer
> > your silly questions however you want, you'll just argue what I put anyway.
>
> See: more silly insults by you. OK, you are a funny guy. Do you have
> something on topic to say?
>
What topic? The topic you started about Penn Station? I answered those
questions. The topic you started afterwards when responding to me
about consistent UIs across systems? I talked about that too. The
topic of UI consistency on a single system, which you changed to
later? Talked about it. The topic you started when you disagreed with
me about what is a metaphor? Well I've had plenty to say about that
recently. That one is quickly becoming my favorite.
>
> >>> How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is "stupid"?
> >>> Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
> >>> You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
>
> >> Do you understand this yet?
>
> > I don't understand metaphors now?
>
> Have you ever? You are working hard to misunderstand them now. See below
> for an example:
>
> > You just said "sea of troubles" fails because not all troubles are in seas.
> > That isn't even what the metaphor means. I still can't stop laughing about
> > that.
>
> > Your point of different UIs in one system came up much later.
>
> That what? The point of the metaphor was different UIs in one system.
>
> > Your "metaphor" doesn't apply.
>
> You have repeatedly admitted you do not get it. OK. So?
No, I have never said I don't get it. I said it doesn't apply. Those
are two different concepts. You obviously don't know what a metaphor
is, so maybe you shouldn't question me on these things.
>
> > I understand that you so desperately have to be
> > right in this, but I just can't let your "sea of troubles" explanation go. I
> > simply can't.
>
> I get you want to spew insults and laugh. OK.
>
I want you to explain sea of troubles and what a metaphor is again.
cc
> 8:50 PM:
>
> >>> The metaphor fails because troubles are not all in seas? You're seriously
> >>> insane.
>
> >> Do you think you really have a "sea" of troubles? A sea is a big body of
> >> water... the metaphor falls apart very quickly.
>
> > Hahahahahahahaha. Ahhh hahahahaha. I don't even know how to respond to
> > that. A sea IS a big body of water
>
> Which is my point.
>
> > , which is exactly why the metaphor works.
>
> It works on a, well, metaphorical level. It fails horribly on a literal
> level. As it should - it is, of course, a metaphor!
Hahaha, wait wait, so when you said "all metaphors fail" you're
telling me that you meant they fail on a literal level? Hahahahaha.
This is too much.
> > This is too much to take. I honestly thought you were going to come back with
> > the "I was just joking" routine to hide, but this is so much better. And yes,
> > I snipped your comment below, because if this why you think "sea of troubles"
> > fails, then I can't possibly convince you that your metaphor was fucked.
> > Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> And your evidence of this is... you do not get that metaphors are not to be
> taken literally. Um, whatever.
>
Hahahaha, no shit they're not supposed to be taken literally. That's
why I asked "what's the Linux version of Amtrak?" My evidence is that
you said a metaphor is used to describe two dissimilar things. My
evidence is that you said "sea of troubles" fails on a literal level,
but not metaphorically. That's my evidence that you don't know what
you're talking about.
Snit
c8a9de5a-c83b-4946...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
9:30 PM:
* Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
matter).
* The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
problems. The solution, to move to a situation where a single
system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
different. For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
metaphor bad.
* The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
description, not a metaphor.
* I have not said one word in this thread about how programs
should be consistent from one system to another. I have,
in fact, noted how programs should match the system they
are on.
When you actually decide to come back to the conversation and comment on
something relevant, please let me know. For now you are just spewing silly
insults and amusing yourself. We all have hobbies!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
d3517950-2731-43e3...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com on 3/8/10
9:26 PM:
...applications inconsistent across different operating systems...
Your words. Still quoted, above.
...
>> I do not need a link to you making accusations you cannot support. �Again,
>> the concepts I have talked about have been consistent and clear:
>>
>> * Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
>> � the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
>> � matter).
>>
>> * The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
>> � multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
>> � problems. �The solution, to move to a situation where a single
>> � system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
>> � given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
>> � different. �For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
>> � glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
>> � metaphor bad. �Fine, you do not like the metaphor. �Why not
>> � focus on the point?
>
> I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
> you focus on this point?
You said you did not get the metaphor. I explained it to you. How evil of
me, eh?
>> * The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
>> � As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. �If the things
>> � being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
>> � description, not a metaphor.
>
> No, that is not what a metaphor is. I'd like to see where you got that
> definition. Preferably not from Men's Journal of Health this time.
What? For crying out loud, do you need me to quote definitions. Fine.
-----
a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
something that it does not literally denote in order to
suggest a similarity
-----
1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to
something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food
for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else.
-----
literary term or figure of speech, which describes something
in a non-literal way by drawing a comparison
-----
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or
"All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
-----
I esp. like the last definition. LOL! The very metaphor you picked used as
the example of using one word or phrase to designate another. As I said.
A metaphor is not meant to be taken literally, and you can, of course, push
the comparison too far. With a sea of troubles, where are the fish? LOL!
>> * I have not said one word in this thread about how programs
>> � should be consistent from one system to another. �I have,
>> � in fact, noted how programs should match the system they
>> � are on.
>
> Haha, sure you didn't.
You *claimed* I did. You even quoted where you thought I did... and I told
you where you went wrong. Face it, you repeatedly accuse me of things you
have no evidence for. Not a single word.
...
>>> I understand you want so hard for me to be wrong about something, so
>>> you keep changing what we're talking about.
>>
>> See above: what do you think I have said that is in contradiction to those
>> things? �And why do you think I *want* you to be so wrong? �I would prefer
>> if you were not! �Heck, even if you were - or merely disagreed - I would
>> prefer you to not just make up stories about me as you have been. �Stick to
>> the topic, do not make personal attacks. �Can you do that?
>
> You're the one creating the topics not me. You do not know what a
> metaphor is. That is not a personal attack. That is fact based on what
> you just posted.
Ah, your personal attack is not an attack because you based it on your silly
and clearly false "interpretations" of what I wrote. Whatever. You can
take metaphors literally all you want. Have fun!
>>> I understand you don't know what a metaphor is, and think "sea of troubles"
>>> fails because not all troubles are in seas.
>>
>> See: just more unsupportable personal attacks by you. �Of course I know what
>> a metaphor is... and have described the concept to you repeatedly. �This
>> whole "what is a metaphor" BS is a side issue you pushed... and when that
>> failed you made personal attacks. �Oh well, it is what you did... but do not
>> blame me!
>
> You just described something that was not a metaphor. Your definition
> is FALSE.
Well, you better contact Webster and friends... because they all agree with
me. Seriously, my focus in this discussion is the technology issues...
specifically mixing UIs in one system. Why do you keep running off talking
about Amtrack and metaphors? OK, I get it - the metaphor I used was not to
you liking... you insisted on focusing on something other than I did. Yipee.
Can you move forward now?
> I did not push the what is a metaphor issue, you did. You started to argue
> about it, and now we have a definition from you that a metaphor compares
> dissimilar things, and "sea of troubles" is a failure of a metaphor because a
> sea is a big body of water. You should have just accepted what I said in the
> first place, you don't know what a metaphor is.
See: you keep spewing silly accusations. Yeah, I and dictionaries are so
wrong and you are right oh wise one. Whatever.
>>> Which is in fact hilarious. Very hilarious.
>>
>> You make silly derogatory statements and you find them funny. �OK.
>> Whatever.
>
> No, you make factually incorrect statements, and I find them funny.
>
>
>>> So hilarious that I don't even care about you flip flopping your views.
>>> Answer
>>> your silly questions however you want, you'll just argue what I put anyway.
>>
>> See: more silly insults by you. �OK, you are a funny guy. �Do you have
>> something on topic to say?
>
> What topic?
You know, the topic this thread is about: systems having multiple UIs and
the problems it leads to.
But you prefer to talk about Amtrak and get shown that dictionaries and I
agree about what a metaphor is.
> The topic you started about Penn Station?
When you say a "sea of troubles" is you topic the sea? Of course not! You
really are just making a fool of yourself. Again:
* Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
� the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
� matter).
What is so hard about that for you? Only you have claimed Penn Station is
the topic!
> I answered those questions. The topic you started afterwards when responding
> to me about consistent UIs across systems?
Afterwards? What was the first post "after"? Oh, that is right - you claim
to be clueless about the first post. Whatever.
> I talked about that too. The topic of UI consistency on a single system, which
> you changed to later?
Changed from what? From the first post:
Multiple user interfaces... perhaps all good, but not
consistent with one another. And it makes for a mess.
If you can understand the problem with Penn Station signage,
you can likely understand more about the problems with the
UIs of the various desktop Linux distros.
Yeah, but the topic was Penn Station... not Linux, right? LOL!
> Talked about it. The topic you started when you
> disagreed with me about what is a metaphor?
I claim metaphors should be taken metaphorically. Yeah, just an outrage!
Can you post another dozen times on how wrong I am about that and laugh like
a four year old.
> Well I've had plenty to say about
> that recently. That one is quickly becoming my favorite.
Snit says metaphors should be taken metaphorically! This makes the top ten
list of favorite claims you have read!
And then you wonder why you are not being taken seriously.
>>>>> How can you claim a metaphor you show no sign of understanding is
>>>>> "stupid"?
>>>>> Again: the point was that different UIs in *one system* leads to problems.
>>>>> You, above, show you still are not getting that concept.
>>
>>>> Do you understand this yet?
>>
>>> I don't understand metaphors now?
>>
>> Have you ever? �You are working hard to misunderstand them now. �See below
>> for an example:
>>
>>> You just said "sea of troubles" fails because not all troubles are in seas.
>>> That isn't even what the metaphor means. I still can't stop laughing about
>>> that.
>>
>>> Your point of different UIs in one system came up much later.
>>
>> That what? The point of the metaphor was different UIs in one system.
>>
>>> Your "metaphor" doesn't apply.
>>
>> You have repeatedly admitted you do not get it. �OK. �So?
>
> No, I have never said I don't get it. I said it doesn't apply. Those
> are two different concepts. You obviously don't know what a metaphor
> is, so maybe you shouldn't question me on these things.
Ah, you do not admit to not getting it, you just do not see how it
applies... even though it has been repeatedly explained to you.
Yeah, that is a great defense on your part. :)
>>
>>> I understand that you so desperately have to be
>>> right in this, but I just can't let your "sea of troubles" explanation go. I
>>> simply can't.
>>
>> I get you want to spew insults and laugh. �OK.
>>
>
> I want you to explain sea of troubles and what a metaphor is again.
I am sure you do. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Haha, no kidding. Also the least relevant words on my sentence. Try
"It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment) to have
applications inconsistent"
>
>
>
> >> I do not need a link to you making accusations you cannot support. Again,
> >> the concepts I have talked about have been consistent and clear:
>
> >> * Having multiple UIs in one system is a detriment, as shown by
> >> the metaphor of Penn Station (and many other ways, for that
> >> matter).
>
> >> * The metaphor of Penn Station is an apt one, being that it has
> >> multiple UIs in one system and this, of course, leads to
> >> problems. The solution, to move to a situation where a single
> >> system has a single unified UI, is also the solution for any
> >> given distro, though the process in which this can happen is
> >> different. For reasons I shall not speculate on, you have
> >> glommed onto this difference and insisted it makes the whole
> >> metaphor bad. Fine, you do not like the metaphor. Why not
> >> focus on the point?
>
> > I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
> > you focus on this point?
>
> You said you did not get the metaphor. I explained it to you. How evil of
> me, eh?
So you admit, that you were the one who focused on the point of what
is and isn't a metaphor? Good.
> >> * The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
> >> As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
> >> being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
> >> description, not a metaphor.
>
> > No, that is not what a metaphor is. I'd like to see where you got that
> > definition. Preferably not from Men's Journal of Health this time.
>
> What? For crying out loud, do you need me to quote definitions. Fine.
Did you at least read them this time? Or did you lie again. Because if
you can read the definitions, and still say that a metaphor compares
dissimilar things, then I can't help you.
> -----
> a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
> something that it does not literally denote in order to
> suggest a similarity
Similarity is not dissimilar. Denote is not comparing.
> -----
> 1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to
> something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food
> for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else.
> -----
> literary term or figure of speech, which describes something
> in a non-literal way by drawing a comparison
> -----
> A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
> making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or
> "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
> -----
>
> I esp. like the last definition. LOL! The very metaphor you picked used as
> the example of using one word or phrase to designate another. As I said.
> A metaphor is not meant to be taken literally, and you can, of course, push
> the comparison too far. With a sea of troubles, where are the fish? LOL!
Where is the word dissimilar or comparing? Of course sea of troubles
designates another phrase. But it does not compare two dissimilar
things!
With sea of troubles, the troubles ARE the fish. Hahaha you are an
idiot. If you still don't get what "sea of troubles" means, or even
"All the world's a stage" I'll explicitly explain it to you, but do
you see now, that you have no idea what a metaphor is?
Snit
aa364f07-a91c-4690...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
4:16 AM:
...
>>> Nope, Hadron certainly didn't. My response was not about consistency,
>>> system to system. My response was about my feelings in general towards
>>> consistency. Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response. You
>>> have a serious problem with context. It was all about consistent UIs,
>>> no mention of system to system, or only on a single system. I really
>>> don't know how to explain this to you. It's all about reading the
>>> context. Unfortunately you snipped what Hadron wrote, but I'm sure you
>>> can find it.
>>
>> ...applications inconsistent across different operating systems...
>> Your words. �Still quoted, above.
>>
>
> Haha, no kidding. Also the least relevant words on my sentence. Try
> "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment) to have
> applications inconsistent"
I get it: you want to deny you mentioned inconsistencies across different
operating systems, even though you did. I will note you did. You will deny
it. Back and forth. And this amuses you. OK.
...
>>> I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
>>> you focus on this point?
>>
>> You said you did not get the metaphor. �I explained it to you. �How evil of
>> me, eh?
>
> So you admit, that you were the one who focused on the point of what
> is and isn't a metaphor? Good.
When you said you did not get it, I explained it to you. Yeah, such focus
by me. It was insane! LOL! How dare I explain to you what you claim to
not understand. Man, I really changed the topic there, eh? :)
>
>
>>>> * The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
>>>> As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
>>>> being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
>>>> description, not a metaphor.
>>
>>> No, that is not what a metaphor is. I'd like to see where you got that
>>> definition. Preferably not from Men's Journal of Health this time.
>>
>> What? �For crying out loud, do you need me to quote definitions. �Fine.
>
> Did you at least read them this time? Or did you lie again. Because if
> you can read the definitions, and still say that a metaphor compares
> dissimilar things, then I can't help you.
So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. LOL!
>> � � -----
>> � � a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
>> � � something that it does not literally denote in order to
>> � � suggest a similarity
>
> Similarity is not dissimilar. Denote is not comparing.
Twist, cc, twist!
>> � � -----
>> � � 1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to
>> � � something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food
>> � � for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else.
>> � � -----
>> � � literary term or figure of speech, which describes something
>> � � in a non-literal way by drawing a comparison
>> � � -----
>> � � A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
>> � � designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
>> � � making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or
>> � � "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
>> � � -----
>>
>> I esp. like the last definition. �LOL! The very metaphor you picked used as
>> the example of using one word or phrase to designate another. � As I said.
>> A metaphor is not meant to be taken literally, and you can, of course, push
>> the comparison too far. �With a sea of troubles, where are the fish? �LOL!
>
> Where is the word dissimilar or comparing? Of course sea of troubles
> designates another phrase. But it does not compare two dissimilar
> things!
Now we know you have no idea what a metaphor even is. OK. You cannot get
from the above definitions that metaphors compare dissimilar things because
the word "dissimilar" is not used. In other words, you are functionally
illiterate. Fine, let me help you:
<http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaphor-and
-simile>
-----
Explain to your students that when we compare two things and
say they are �like� each other it is called a simile. (�The
rain fell like tears.�) In a metaphor, dissimilar things are
compared without the word �like.� (�The moon was a beckoning
lantern.�)
-----
<http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
-----
Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
actually the other, as in �Your room is a pigsty.� Is there
really dirt and slop in your child�s room? Of course not, but
by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
mess, and it's time to clean it up!
-----
But, by all means, argue against this all you want. :)
> With sea of troubles, the troubles ARE the fish.
While different people can see metaphors differently, generally with that
expression the troubles are *metaphorically* the water... you are surrounded
by troubles... as a boat is surrounded by water. Not fish. But, sure,
metaphors, not being literal, can be interpreted differently. Your troubles
might be scaly and a bit slimy. :)
> Hahaha you are an idiot. If you still don't get what "sea of troubles" means,
> or even "All the world's a stage" I'll explicitly explain it to you, but do
> you see now, that you have no idea what a metaphor is?
I see you *think* so... because you really are just lost.
By the way, my *four* year old gets the phrase "all the world's a stage"...
we talked about that metaphor just the other day (they used the phrase in
one of the books we read at night - Magic Tree House series. Great for
kids... might be a good place for you to learn, too!)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 4:16 AM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Nope, Hadron certainly didn't. My response was not about consistency,
> >>> system to system. My response was about my feelings in general towards
> >>> consistency. Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response. You
> >>> have a serious problem with context. It was all about consistent UIs,
> >>> no mention of system to system, or only on a single system. I really
> >>> don't know how to explain this to you. It's all about reading the
> >>> context. Unfortunately you snipped what Hadron wrote, but I'm sure you
> >>> can find it.
>
> >> ...applications inconsistent across different operating systems...
> >> Your words. Still quoted, above.
>
> > Haha, no kidding. Also the least relevant words on my sentence. Try
> > "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment) to have
> > applications inconsistent"
>
> I get it: you want to deny you mentioned inconsistencies across different
> operating systems, even though you did. I will note you did. You will deny
> it. Back and forth. And this amuses you. OK.
>
No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
systems. You were talking about them, so I was as well. You really are
a maroon. My comment to Hadron had everything to do with consistency,
and not what was consistent. That's what I'm pointing out to you. I
can't believe you don't get that. Please tell me you understand my
point to Hadron was not about a single system OR multiple systems, and
in fact had nothing to do with systems at all. Talking to you is like
talking to a brain dead child.
>
> >>> I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
> >>> you focus on this point?
>
> >> You said you did not get the metaphor. I explained it to you. How evil of
> >> me, eh?
>
> > So you admit, that you were the one who focused on the point of what
> > is and isn't a metaphor? Good.
>
> When you said you did not get it, I explained it to you. Yeah, such focus
> by me. It was insane! LOL! How dare I explain to you what you claim to
> not understand. Man, I really changed the topic there, eh? :)
>
Please point out where I claimed to no understand it. I'd like a quote
please, in context of course.
> >>>> * The very concept of a metaphor is comparing dissimilar things.
> >>>> As such, any metaphor is going to be limited. If the things
> >>>> being compared are not dissimilar, then it is a direct
> >>>> description, not a metaphor.
>
> >>> No, that is not what a metaphor is. I'd like to see where you got that
> >>> definition. Preferably not from Men's Journal of Health this time.
>
> >> What? For crying out loud, do you need me to quote definitions. Fine.
>
> > Did you at least read them this time? Or did you lie again. Because if
> > you can read the definitions, and still say that a metaphor compares
> > dissimilar things, then I can't help you.
>
> So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. LOL!
Yup. It's actually in the definitions you quoted.
> >> -----
> >> a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
> >> something that it does not literally denote in order to
> >> suggest a similarity
>
> > Similarity is not dissimilar. Denote is not comparing.
>
> Twist, cc, twist!
>
I'm sorry, but is that not the truth? Are similarity and dissimilar
the same word now? Does denote imply comparing? Comprende english?
>
> >> -----
> >> 1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to
> >> something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food
> >> for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else.
> >> -----
> >> literary term or figure of speech, which describes something
> >> in a non-literal way by drawing a comparison
> >> -----
> >> A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
> >> designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
> >> making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or
> >> "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
> >> -----
>
> >> I esp. like the last definition. LOL! The very metaphor you picked used as
> >> the example of using one word or phrase to designate another. As I said.
> >> A metaphor is not meant to be taken literally, and you can, of course, push
> >> the comparison too far. With a sea of troubles, where are the fish? LOL!
>
> > Where is the word dissimilar or comparing? Of course sea of troubles
> > designates another phrase. But it does not compare two dissimilar
> > things!
>
> Now we know you have no idea what a metaphor even is. OK. You cannot get
> from the above definitions that metaphors compare dissimilar things because
> the word "dissimilar" is not used. In other words, you are functionally
> illiterate. Fine, let me help you:
Not only is the word dissimilar not used, it's OPPOSITE, similar is
used. Does similar equal dissimilar in your world? Are they
interchangable?
> <http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaph...
> -simile>
> -----
> Explain to your students that when we compare two things and
> say they are like each other it is called a simile. ( The
> rain fell like tears. ) In a metaphor, dissimilar things are
> compared without the word like. ( The moon was a beckoning
> lantern. )
> -----
>
> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
> -----
> Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
> actually the other, as in Your room is a pigsty. Is there
> really dirt and slop in your child s room? Of course not, but
> by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
> mess, and it's time to clean it up!
> -----
>
> But, by all means, argue against this all you want. :)
I most certainly will. I don't know the reputation of those sites, but
it can't be good if it's tossing out that shit. Your room is a pigsty
is comparing two SIMILAR things. Both are a mess, that's why the
metaphor works. I didn't go to those sites, but I seriously hope they
are definitions for school children and not anyone with some sense.
> > With sea of troubles, the troubles ARE the fish.
>
> While different people can see metaphors differently, generally with that
> expression the troubles are *metaphorically* the water... you are surrounded
> by troubles... as a boat is surrounded by water. Not fish. But, sure,
> metaphors, not being literal, can be interpreted differently. Your troubles
> might be scaly and a bit slimy. :)
Generally the water is the environment you are in. Swimming in a sea
of troubles is like swimming in a sea of sharks, not swimming in a sea
of water. It just doesn't make much sense the last way, and is very
redundant.
> > Hahaha you are an idiot. If you still don't get what "sea of troubles" means,
> > or even "All the world's a stage" I'll explicitly explain it to you, but do
> > you see now, that you have no idea what a metaphor is?
>
> I see you *think* so... because you really are just lost.
>
> By the way, my *four* year old gets the phrase "all the world's a stage"...
> we talked about that metaphor just the other day (they used the phrase in
> one of the books we read at night - Magic Tree House series. Great for
> kids... might be a good place for you to learn, too!)
>
You four year old may get it, but you certainly do not.
cc
>
Another thing, to get back to one of your many sub-topics. Are you
still claiming that "all metaphors fail?"
Snit
51e154fc-82e3-4131...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
12:20 PM:
...
>>>>> Nope, Hadron certainly didn't. My response was not about consistency,
>>>>> system to system. My response was about my feelings in general towards
>>>>> consistency. Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response. You
>>>>> have a serious problem with context. It was all about consistent UIs,
>>>>> no mention of system to system, or only on a single system. I really
>>>>> don't know how to explain this to you. It's all about reading the
>>>>> context. Unfortunately you snipped what Hadron wrote, but I'm sure you
>>>>> can find it.
>>
>>>> ...applications inconsistent across different operating systems...
>>>> Your words. Still quoted, above.
>>
>>> Haha, no kidding. Also the least relevant words on my sentence. Try
>>> "It makes no sense (but certainly unavoidable at the moment) to have
>>> applications inconsistent"
>>
>> I get it: you want to deny you mentioned inconsistencies across different
>> operating systems, even though you did. �I will note you did. �You will deny
>> it. �Back and forth. �And this amuses you. �OK.
>
> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
> systems.
cc #1
-----
My response was not about consistency, system to system.
-----
cc #2
-----
No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
operating systems.
-----
Let me know when you make up your mind!
> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
cc #1
-----
Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
-----
cc #2
-----
You were talking about them, so I was as well.
-----
Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
Hadron's.
> You really are a maroon. My comment to Hadron had everything to do with
> consistency, and not what was consistent. That's what I'm pointing out to you.
> I can't believe you don't get that. Please tell me you understand my point to
> Hadron was not about a single system OR multiple systems, and in fact had
> nothing to do with systems at all. Talking to you is like talking to a brain
> dead child.
Being that you have no idea what you were talking about or who you were in
reference to, I have no comment. I really do not care. You simply are
tying yourself in knots.
You moved goal posts some time ago to system to system consistency... you
said you misinterpreted a comment of mine when you did so. OK. You misread
something. Move on already.
>>>>> I didn't. I pointed it out. You argued it the rest of the way. Why did
>>>>> you focus on this point?
>>
>>>> You said you did not get the metaphor. I explained it to you. How evil of
>>>> me, eh?
>>
>>> So you admit, that you were the one who focused on the point of what
>>> is and isn't a metaphor? Good.
>>
>> When you said you did not get it, I explained it to you. �Yeah, such focus
>> by me. �It was insane! �LOL! �How dare I explain to you what you claim to
>> not understand. �Man, I really changed the topic there, eh? �:)
>
> Please point out where I claimed to no understand it. I'd like a quote
> please, in context of course.
So now you want to claim you *do* understand the metaphor you have been
arguing against like a crazed lemur. Whatever. You should really pick one
side of each issue and stick to it, or at least admit when you change. You
currently are flip flopping like a fish in a sea of troubles. :)
...
This is getting long... continue in another post.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. �LOL!
>
> Yup. It's actually in the definitions you quoted.
Nope. Just because the word "similar" is present, does not mean that the
dissimilar things in which a similarity is being presented somehow cease to
be dissimilar!
>>>> -----
>>>> a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
>>>> something that it does not literally denote in order to
>>>> suggest a similarity
>>
>>> Similarity is not dissimilar. Denote is not comparing.
>>
>> Twist, cc, twist!
>
> I'm sorry, but is that not the truth? Are similarity and dissimilar
> the same word now? Does denote imply comparing? Comprende english?
Twist all you want. A metaphor shows similarity in *dissimilar* things.
Really, how the heck can you not know this? You really have no idea what
you are talking about... none of the definitions I pointed to suggest
otherwise. You show no understanding of what you read.
...
>> Now we know you have no idea what a metaphor even is. �OK. �You cannot get
>> from the above definitions that metaphors compare dissimilar things because
>> the word "dissimilar" is not used. �In other words, you are functionally
>> illiterate. �Fine, let me help you:
>
> Not only is the word dissimilar not used, it's OPPOSITE, similar is
> used. Does similar equal dissimilar in your world? Are they
> interchangable?
Please learn to read. The concept is simply: metaphors show similarities in
dissimilar things. See how both words are used: gonna blow your mind!
>> <http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaph...
>> -simile>
>> � � -----
>> � � Explain to your students that when we compare two things and
>> � � say they are like each other it is called a simile. ( The
>> � � rain fell like tears. ) In a metaphor, dissimilar things are
>> � � compared without the word like. ( The moon was a beckoning
>> � � lantern. )
>> � � -----
>>
>> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
>> � � -----
>> � � Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
>> � � actually the other, as in Your room is a pigsty. Is there
>> � � really dirt and slop in your child s room? Of course not, but
>> � � by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
>> � � mess, and it's time to clean it up!
>> � � -----
>>
>> But, by all means, argue against this all you want. �:)
>
> I most certainly will. I don't know the reputation of those sites, but it
> can't be good if it's tossing out that shit.
Yeah, you are the authority now... not dictionaries or educational sites.
LOL!
> Your room is a pigsty is comparing two SIMILAR things.
Well, sure, if you are a pig and literally live in a pigsty. LOL! Here,
maybe this will help you:
<http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
-----
Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
actually the other, as in �Your room is a pigsty.� Is there
really dirt and slop in your child�s room? Of course not, but
by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
mess, and it's time to clean it up!
-----
But education.com is just wrong... you are the authority, right?
> Both are a mess, that's why the metaphor works.
Has anyone said otherwise?
> I didn't go to those sites, but I seriously hope they are definitions for
> school children and not anyone with some sense.
Hey, easy to find more sites that show you what you do not know: metaphors
show similarities in dissimilar things:
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html>
-----
A metaphor: a comparison of two dissimilar things which does
not use "like" or "as," e.g., "my love is a red, red rose"
(Lilia Melani).
-----
<http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaphor-and
-simile>
-----
In a metaphor, dissimilar things are compared without the
word �like.� (�The moon was a beckoning lantern.�)
-----
<http://somniloquy.org/archive/v2/poetry/statements.php?item=11>
-----
One way to think of both metaphor and simile is as a
correspondence between two (usually) dissimilar objects so
that something is revealed about the nature of one of those
objects.
-----
<http://teacher.scholastic.com/writeit/cavalcade/articles/kooser.htm>
-----
LC asked Kooser to come up with a writing exercise on
metaphor. Here is one of his favorites! Follow these steps
and build bridges between dissimilar things!
-----
<http://www.12manage.com/description_management_metaphors.html>
-----
A metaphor (from Greek metapherein - to transfer) is a
comparison which imaginatively compares one (complex) thing
with another dissimilar (well-known) thing, and transfers or
ascribes to the first thing (the tenor or idea) some of the
qualities of the second (the vehicle or image). Typical for a
metaphor is that one thing is likened to another dissimilar
thing not using like, as, than, etc.
A metaphor is not merely an expressive device, but an
integral part of the function of language as a definer of
reality as well as a reflector of reality.
This form of figurative language can help to convey meaning
to widely dissimilar things. Below some examples of
frequently used metaphors in management:
-----
<http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/28527/metaphors-discover-the-
creator-s-tool-from-paradise>
-----
Once we have a metaphor to work with, we make use of the
natural drive of the human brain to look for and create
connections between two items, regardless of how dissimilar
or unrelated they may be.
-----
How can they all be so wrong? LOL! You really should contact them all and
tell them that you are the new authority on the topic!
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6b3299df-f698-4171...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
12:22 PM:
> On Mar 9, 10:38�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Another thing, to get back to one of your many sub-topics. Are you
> still claiming that "all metaphors fail?"
If taken literally, yes. Of course. Or even if the metaphorical meaning is
pushed to far. Sure.
Are you still sticking with your claims:
Snit:
So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. �LOL!
CC:
Yup. It's actually in the definitions you quoted.
Remember, your claim about metaphors has been soundly shown to be false....
just wondering if you will admit it it. Below, again, are references that
contradict your view and note, of course, that metaphors compare two
dissimilar things (and, of course, show some level of similarity in those
dissimilar things). Can you *still* claim you know what a metaphor is after
all this evidence that contradicts your view? Really, I want to know. If
so, you have amazing powers of self-delusion!
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html>
-----
A metaphor: a comparison of two dissimilar things which does
not use "like" or "as," e.g., "my love is a red, red rose"
(Lilia Melani).
-----
<http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaphor-and
-simile>
-----
In a metaphor, dissimilar things are compared without the
word �like.� (�The moon was a beckoning lantern.�)
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Hahaha you really are fucked in the head. Those two statements are
completely consistent with each other when looked at in context. I
responded to Hadron with a quote of something I said earlier. That
quote was specific, but used as an example to refute something Hadron
had said. How is this so hard for you to understand?
> > You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>
> cc #1
> -----
> Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
> -----
>
> cc #2
> -----
> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
> -----
>
> Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
> Hadron's.
It was a quote of mine earlier in response to you, that I used to make
a point to Hadron. How is this hard to understand?
What the fuck? Arguing against something does not mean not
understanding it.
cc
> 12:22 PM:
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:38 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Another thing, to get back to one of your many sub-topics. Are you
> > still claiming that "all metaphors fail?"
>
> If taken literally, yes. Of course. Or even if the metaphorical meaning is
> pushed to far. Sure.
What a non-answer. Does sea of troubles fail?
> Are you still sticking with your claims:
You know it.
> Snit:
> So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. LOL!
> CC:
> Yup. It's actually in the definitions you quoted.
>
> Remember, your claim about metaphors has been soundly shown to be false....
> just wondering if you will admit it it. Below, again, are references that
> contradict your view and note, of course, that metaphors compare two
> dissimilar things (and, of course, show some level of similarity in those
> dissimilar things). Can you *still* claim you know what a metaphor is after
> all this evidence that contradicts your view? Really, I want to know. If
> so, you have amazing powers of self-delusion!
I'll stick with Merriam Webster thank you very much. Not these shitty
sites with bogus explanations.
> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
> -----
> Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
> actually the other, as in ³Your room is a pigsty.² Is there
> really dirt and slop in your child¹s room? Of course not, but
> by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
> mess, and it's time to clean it up!
> -----
>
> <http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaph...
> -simile>
> -----
> Explain to your students that when we compare two things and
> say they are ³like² each other it is called a simile. (³The
> rain fell like tears.²) In a metaphor, dissimilar things are
> compared without the word ³like.² (³The moon was a beckoning
> lantern.²)
> -----
>
> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
> -----
> Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
> actually the other, as in ³Your room is a pigsty.² Is there
> really dirt and slop in your child¹s room? Of course not, but
> by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
> mess, and it's time to clean it up!
> -----
>
> <http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html>
> -----
> A metaphor: a comparison of two dissimilar things which does
> not use "like" or "as," e.g., "my love is a red, red rose"
> (Lilia Melani).
> -----
>
> <http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaph...
> <http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/28527/metaphors-discove...
> creator-s-tool-from-paradise>
> -----
> Once we have a metaphor to work with, we make use of the
> natural drive of the human brain to look for and create
> connections between two items, regardless of how dissimilar
> or unrelated they may be.
> -----
>
www.12manage.com? www.bangkokpost.com? Umm give me a dictionary.
Snit
025cbdec-da49-4ee7...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
1:26 PM:
> On Mar 9, 3:07�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 6b3299df-f698-4171-9ddb-1bce72258...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
>> 12:22 PM:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 10:38�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Another thing, to get back to one of your many sub-topics. Are you
>>> still claiming that "all metaphors fail?"
>>
>> If taken literally, yes. �Of course. �Or even if the metaphorical meaning is
>> pushed to far. �Sure.
>
> What a non-answer. Does sea of troubles fail?
It can be a lovely and wonderful metaphor - very successful and presenting
an idea... but, sure, if you push the metaphorical meaning too far or take
the metaphor literally, as with all metaphors, it will cease to make sense
(and thus fail). It is not really the fault of the metaphor, though, it is
just that the metaphor is not being seen correctly.
>> Are you still sticking with your claims:
>
> You know it.
>
>> � Snit:
>> � � So you deny metaphors compare dissimilar things now. �LOL!
>> � CC:
>> � � Yup. It's actually in the definitions you quoted.
>>
>> Remember, your claim about metaphors has been soundly shown to be false....
>
>> just wondering if you will admit it it. �Below, again, are references that
>> contradict your view and note, of course, that metaphors compare two
>> dissimilar things (and, of course, show some level of similarity in those
>> dissimilar things). �Can you *still* claim you know what a metaphor is after
>> all this evidence that contradicts your view? �Really, I want to know. �If
>> so, you have amazing powers of self-delusion!
>
> I'll stick with Merriam Webster thank you very much. Not these shitty
> sites with bogus explanations.
LOL! The funny thing here is not just that you will not admit you are
wrong, I *really* think you believe Webster's disagrees... all because it
does not use the word "dissimilar". You cannot get the concept!
Remember, I already quoted dictionaries for you - you claimed that since
they used the word "similar" and did not use the word "dissimilar" this
somehow meant they were not talking about looking at dissimilar things and
finding similarities. Face it - your claim has been completely and totally
ripped to shreds... and your counter claim has *no* support. None. Not a
single source agrees with your view. Not *one*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
05f1fe53-49a6-4ced...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
1:24 PM:
...
>>> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
>>> systems.
>>
>> � cc #1
>> � � -----
>> � � My response was not about consistency, system to system.
>> � � -----
>>
>> � cc #2
>> � � -----
>> � � No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
>> � � operating systems.
>> � � -----
>>
>> Let me know when you make up your mind!
>
> Hahaha you really are fucked in the head. Those two statements are
> completely consistent with each other when looked at in context. I
> responded to Hadron with a quote of something I said earlier. That
> quote was specific, but used as an example to refute something Hadron
> had said. How is this so hard for you to understand?
Were you or were you not talking about consistency issues between systems?
Please pick one!
>>> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>>
>> �cc #1
>> � � -----
>> � � Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
>> � � -----
>>
>> � cc #2
>> � � -----
>> � � You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>> � � -----
>>
>> Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
>> Hadron's.
>
> It was a quote of mine earlier in response to you, that I used to make
> a point to Hadron. How is this hard to understand?
Was your comment in based on something Hadron said or something I said?
Please pick one!
...
>>> Please point out where I claimed to no understand it. I'd like a quote
>>> please, in context of course.
>>
>> So now you want to claim you *do* understand the metaphor you have been
>> arguing against like a crazed lemur. Whatever. �You should really pick one
>> side of each issue and stick to it, or at least admit when you change. �You
>> currently are flip flopping like a fish in a sea of troubles. �:)
>
> What the fuck? Arguing against something does not mean not
> understanding it.
You did not argue against it - you argued against your misinterpretation of
it. Remember: it has been proved you do not even know what a metaphor is...
now you want to try to push the idea that your can interpret an author's
metaphors better than he can!
cc
> 1:24 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
> >>> systems.
>
> >> cc #1
> >> -----
> >> My response was not about consistency, system to system.
> >> -----
>
> >> cc #2
> >> -----
> >> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
> >> operating systems.
> >> -----
>
> >> Let me know when you make up your mind!
>
> > Hahaha you really are fucked in the head. Those two statements are
> > completely consistent with each other when looked at in context. I
> > responded to Hadron with a quote of something I said earlier. That
> > quote was specific, but used as an example to refute something Hadron
> > had said. How is this so hard for you to understand?
>
> Were you or were you not talking about consistency issues between systems?
> Please pick one!
Well that would depend on which post you were talking about, now
wouldn't it? Was my response to Hadron about consistency between
systems? No. In general in this thread did we discuss consistency
between systems? Yes. This is not hard to understand.
>
> >>> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>
> >> cc #1
> >> -----
> >> Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
> >> -----
>
> >> cc #2
> >> -----
> >> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
> >> -----
>
> >> Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
> >> Hadron's.
>
> > It was a quote of mine earlier in response to you, that I used to make
> > a point to Hadron. How is this hard to understand?
>
> Was your comment in based on something Hadron said or something I said?
> Please pick one!
>
Neither. It was not based on anything. I first made the comment in
response to what you said. I then used that comment as a quote in
response to something Hadron said, but in a completely different
context. This is not hard to understand.
>
> >>> Please point out where I claimed to no understand it. I'd like a quote
> >>> please, in context of course.
>
> >> So now you want to claim you *do* understand the metaphor you have been
> >> arguing against like a crazed lemur. Whatever. You should really pick one
> >> side of each issue and stick to it, or at least admit when you change. You
> >> currently are flip flopping like a fish in a sea of troubles. :)
>
> > What the fuck? Arguing against something does not mean not
> > understanding it.
>
> You did not argue against it - you argued against your misinterpretation of
> it. Remember: it has been proved you do not even know what a metaphor is...
> now you want to try to push the idea that your can interpret an author's
> metaphors better than he can!
>
> LOL!
>
LOL indeed. I like how you think you proved something. Your
explanations of "sea of troubles" really were priceless. I really
don't know what happened to you as a poster though. I mean not long
ago you blatantly lied at least twice (I'm not one to question
education, but the fact that you said you took classes in HCI general
concepts and experiments in UIs makes me suspicious as well). In this
thread you deliberately snipped quotes out of context. Now you're
being deliberately obtuse (I know you aren't this dumb), by not
understanding how I can quote myself in different contexts. You've
become like most of COLA now. It's kind of sad. You've become some
weird amalgam of Roy Schestowitz, Kelsey Bjarnason, Petey Kohlmann,
and Homer.
In closing, if you think all metaphors fail, and sea of troubles fails
because there is no water, and a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when
talking about "your room is a pigsty" and you flip flop on your
stance, and you quote without context, and you snip and run, and you
flat out lie, then I don't know how we can continue to have
discussions. Let me know when you're not like the rest of COLA, and
don't pretend to not know what I mean by that. I started out with two
posts answering your questions, and you decided to argue it from there
(even going to far as to agree with me while arguing). I'm
dumbfounded, but I must say for a while there I had a really good
laugh.
Snit
54170251-d575-468f...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
2:09 PM:
The one you were talking about in *both* quotes, above. Let us not pretend
otherwise!
> Was my response to Hadron about consistency between systems? No. In general in
> this thread did we discuss consistency between systems? Yes. This is not hard
> to understand.
Please show where the context was different.
>>>>> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>>
>>>> �cc #1
>>>> � � -----
>>>> � � Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
>>>> � � -----
>>
>>>> � cc #2
>>>> � � -----
>>>> � � You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>>>> � � -----
>>
>>>> Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
>>>> Hadron's.
>>
>>> It was a quote of mine earlier in response to you, that I used to make
>>> a point to Hadron. How is this hard to understand?
>>
>> Was your comment in based on something Hadron said or something I said?
>> Please pick one!
>
> Neither.
Ah, so there was no need to refer to my comments or Hadrons. LOL!
> It was not based on anything. I first made the comment in response to what you
> said. I then used that comment as a quote in response to something Hadron
> said, but in a completely different context. This is not hard to understand.
Please show where the context was different.
You have *claimed* the quotes were from different contexts. You have not
supported this. In my first post where I show each of your pairs it is
clear they are the same context:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf>
There goes your claim of different contexts!
> In closing, if you think all metaphors fail, and sea of troubles fails
> because there is no water, and a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when
> talking about "your room is a pigsty" and you flip flop on your
> stance, and you quote without context, and you snip and run, and you
> flat out lie, then I don't know how we can continue to have
> discussions.
You get mighty testy when you are proved to have no idea what a metaphore
even is:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2ec0012209128581>
By the way, in regards to your accusations / claims:
1) "you think all metaphors fail": your claim, out of context, is not
accurate. I think metaphors can be wonderfully successful - but people who
take them too far or who take them literally fail to understand the
metaphor. In that way, sure, "all metaphors fail", but without the context
you are twisting the meaning of my words.
2) "a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when talking about 'your room is a
pigsty'": remember, they *are* dissimilar:
<http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
-----
Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
actually the other, as in "Your room is a pigsty." Is there
really dirt and slop in your child's room? Of course not, but
by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
mess, and it's time to clean it up!
-----
You have no counter to this. You just deny it.
3) "you flip flop on your stance": you have repeated this accusation but
failed to show any such flip flopping.
4) "you quote without context": you have yet to show where - though I just
showed where you took my words out of context to try to make them mean
something other than what they meant!
5) "you snip and run": you have not pointed to a single relevant comment I
have not responded to. Generally multiple times. You are repetitive.
6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. None.
> Let me know when you're not like the rest of COLA, and don't pretend to not
> know what I mean by that.
You want to know I am not like what you accuse me of with *no* support.
Maybe you can start by supporting your accusations. I doubt it.
> I started out with two posts answering your questions, and you decided to
> argue it from there (even going to far as to agree with me while arguing). I'm
> dumbfounded, but I must say for a while there I had a really good laugh.
You argued against me... and it turns out the whole debate was because you
not only could not understand my metaphor showing to dissimilar things which
had the similarity of using different UIs in the same system, you do not
even know what a metaphor is!
Hey, maybe you can explain why the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong:
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377872/metaphor>
-----
figure of speech that implies comparison between two
unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an
explicit comparison signalled by the words �like� or �as.�
-----
How about these sources?
<http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/metaphor.html>
-----
Metaphor comparison of two unlike things using the verb "to
be" and not using like or as as in a simile.
-----
<http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm>
-----
A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made
between two unlike things that actually have something in
common.
-----
<http://www.infoplease.com/cig/grammar-style/mixed-metaphors-dollar-late-day
-short.html>
-----
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unlike
things.
-----
<http://homeschooling.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_mini_lesson_on_metaphor_and
_simile>
-----
Metaphors are comparisons between two unlike objects.
-----
What makes you think you are right and *every* source we have found supports
my view? Do you not see where that is absolutely irrational of you?
Really... if you cannot see where you are wrong, you are just flat out
deluding yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> I'll stick with Merriam Webster thank you very much. Not these shitty
> sites with bogus explanations.
Just to be clear, you think you are right and *dozen* of sources, including
the Encyclopedia Britannica, are just flat out wrong... and you want to be
taken seriously. LOL!
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377872/metaphor>
-----
figure of speech that implies comparison between two
unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an
explicit comparison signalled by the words �like� or �as.�
-----
<http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
-----
Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
actually the other, as in "Your room is a pigsty." Is there
really dirt and slop in your child's room? Of course not, but
by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
mess, and it's time to clean it up!
-----
<http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/metaphor.html>
-----
Metaphor comparison of two unlike things using the verb "to
be" and not using like or as as in a simile.
-----
<http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm>
-----
A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made
between two unlike things that actually have something in
common.
-----
<http://www.infoplease.com/cig/grammar-style/mixed-metaphors-dollar-late-day
-short.html>
-----
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unlike
things.
-----
<http://homeschooling.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_mini_lesson_on_metaphor_and
_simile>
-----
Metaphors are comparisons between two unlike objects.
-----
<http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaphor-and
-simile>
-----
Explain to your students that when we compare two things and
say they are �like� each other it is called a simile. (�The
rain fell like tears.�) In a metaphor, dissimilar things are
compared without the word �like.� (�The moon was a beckoning
lantern.�)
-----
<http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
-----
Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
actually the other, as in �Your room is a pigsty.� Is there
really dirt and slop in your child�s room? Of course not, but
by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
mess, and it's time to clean it up!
-----
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html>
-----
A metaphor: a comparison of two dissimilar things which does
not use "like" or "as," e.g., "my love is a red, red rose"
(Lilia Melani).
-----
<http://www.literacyconnections.com/teaching-writing-techniques-metaphor-and
<http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/28527/metaphors-discover-the-
creator-s-tool-from-paradise>
-----
Once we have a metaphor to work with, we make use of the
natural drive of the human brain to look for and create
connections between two items, regardless of how dissimilar
or unrelated they may be.
-----
<http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/metaphor?view=uk>
-----
1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to
something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food
for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else.
-----
<http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/metaphor.php>
-----
a literary term or figure of speech, which describes
something in a non-literal way by drawing a comparison
-----
<http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?re
fid=1861629530>
-----
implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or
something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but
by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him,
her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
-----
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor>
-----
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in
drowning in money)
-----
<http://www.wordnik.com/words/metaphor>
-----
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily
designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles� or
"All the world's a stage� (Shakespeare).
-----
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphor?rdfrom=Metaphor>
-----
The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it
isn�t, invoking a direct similarity between the word or
phrase used and the thing described, and in the case of
English without the words �like� or �as�.
-----
<http://www.how-to-study.com/study-skills/en/language-arts/7/metaphors/>
-----
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase
that denotes a certain object or idea is applied to another
word or phrase to imply some similarity between them.
-----
<http://www.yourdictionary.com/metaphor>
-----
a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which
a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing
is applied to another
-----
<http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=metaphor>
-----
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used to
describe one thing in terms of another in a nonliteral way,
such as "drowning in work".
-----
<http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Metaphor>
-----
a figure of speech, which consists in the transference to one
object of an attribute or name which strictly and literally
is not applicable to it, but only figuratively and by analogy.
Snit
12:44 PM:
>>>> If you learn Word on OS X are you always going to be on OS X? The same
>>>> thing applies to OO on different distros, and on XP and OS X. It's
>>>> unavoidable (potentially impossible) to have it completely consistent
>>>> across all.
>>>
>>> It is not even desirable. �OpenOffice on OS X, originally, was much like the
>>> Linux version - even running in the X11 environment. �It was improved... and
>>> now it is a pretty good OS X "citizen". �Much better.
>>
>> So what difference does it make if it's inconsistent across distros?
>> It's the same concept.
>
> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
> another WM/DE *IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
> that same environment.
>
> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
> your views.
Curious if you have continued to follow this rather absurd thread. Comes
down to cc, I think, saying he agrees with the UI comments (the point of the
thread) but then saying that not only does he think my metaphor was bad
(even though it did as I wished and showed why a system with multiple UIs is
problematic), but claiming that he knows what a metaphor is but that dozens
of sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (and myself), get it
wrong.
Yeah, his big complain is that I agree with the Encyclopedia Britannica and
every other source we could find on what a metaphor is.
I will grant him this - at least he is funny. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Right, and both of those posts came from two different contexts, did
they not?
> > Was my response to Hadron about consistency between systems? No. In general in
> > this thread did we discuss consistency between systems? Yes. This is not hard
> > to understand.
>
> Please show where the context was different.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bdc60a1306221a30?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #1: Statement made in response your consistency across
multiple distros statement.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5ac8cdffad4164?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #2: Response to Hadron's statement of "Its clear you are not
sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as usually sharp as you
seems to totally miss the importance of consistent UIs." Note he was
talking about consistent UIs in general. I pointed out that his
statement was inaccurate, and in fact he had quoted me on the extreme
case of having applications consistent across all systems, so no I did
not miss the importance of consistent UIs. You snipped this from all
subsequent posts you made. I would say I'm not sure why, but I am sure
why.
>
>
> >>>>> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
>
> >>>> cc #1
> >>>> -----
> >>>> Look at what Hadron wrote, then look at my response.
> >>>> -----
>
> >>>> cc #2
> >>>> -----
> >>>> You were talking about them, so I was as well.
> >>>> -----
>
> >>>> Let me know when you decide if you were in response to my comments or
> >>>> Hadron's.
>
> >>> It was a quote of mine earlier in response to you, that I used to make
> >>> a point to Hadron. How is this hard to understand?
>
> >> Was your comment in based on something Hadron said or something I said?
> >> Please pick one!
>
> > Neither.
>
> Ah, so there was no need to refer to my comments or Hadrons. LOL!
>
> > It was not based on anything. I first made the comment in response to what you
> > said. I then used that comment as a quote in response to something Hadron
> > said, but in a completely different context. This is not hard to understand.
>
> Please show where the context was different.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bdc60a1306221a30?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #1: Statement made in response your consistency across
multiple distros statement.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5ac8cdffad4164?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #2: Response to Hadron's statement of "Its clear you are not
sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as usually sharp as you
seems to totally miss the importance of consistent UIs." Note he was
talking about consistent UIs in general. I pointed out that his
statement was inaccurate, and in fact he had quoted me on the extreme
case of having applications consistent across all systems, so no I did
not miss the importance of consistent UIs. You snipped this from all
subsequent posts you made. I would say I'm not sure why, but I am sure
why.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232...>
>
> There goes your claim of different contexts!
Do you not know what a context is now? Because it certainly isn't
selected quotes from me taken out of the paragraph they were in.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bdc60a1306221a30?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #1: Statement made in response your consistency across
multiple distros statement. I mentioned it would be nice, but damn
near impossible to achieve.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5ac8cdffad4164?hl=en&dmode=source
Context #2: Response to Hadron's statement of "Its clear you are not
sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as usually sharp as you
seems to totally miss the importance of consistent UIs." Note he was
talking about consistent UIs in general. I pointed out that his
statement was inaccurate, and in fact he had quoted me on the extreme
case of having applications consistent across all systems, so no, I
did not miss the importance of consistent UIs. You snipped this from
all subsequent posts you made. I would say I'm not sure why, but I am
sure why.
> > In closing, if you think all metaphors fail, and sea of troubles fails
> > because there is no water, and a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when
> > talking about "your room is a pigsty" and you flip flop on your
> > stance, and you quote without context, and you snip and run, and you
> > flat out lie, then I don't know how we can continue to have
> > discussions.
>
> You get mighty testy when you are proved to have no idea what a metaphore
> even is:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2ec00122091...>
>
> By the way, in regards to your accusations / claims:
>
> 1) "you think all metaphors fail": your claim, out of context, is not
> accurate. I think metaphors can be wonderfully successful - but people who
> take them too far or who take them literally fail to understand the
> metaphor. In that way, sure, "all metaphors fail", but without the context
> you are twisting the meaning of my words.
That is not out of context. That is a direct quote from you.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a21c562ec7f284b1?hl=en&dmode=source
> 2) "a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when talking about 'your room is a
> pigsty'": remember, they *are* dissimilar:
>
> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
> -----
> Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
> actually the other, as in "Your room is a pigsty." Is there
> really dirt and slop in your child's room? Of course not, but
> by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
> mess, and it's time to clean it up!
> -----
>
> You have no counter to this. You just deny it.
My counter is that www.education.com gave a shitty description of a
metaphor. The room is SIMILAR to a pigsty, which is why the metaphor
works. If it was a clean room, then the room would be DISSIMILAR to a
pigsty, in which case the metaphor is a shitty one.
> 3) "you flip flop on your stance": you have repeated this accusation but
> failed to show any such flip flopping.
Half the time you wanted to argue about a single system, the other
half multiple systems.
> 4) "you quote without context": you have yet to show where - though I just
> showed where you took my words out of context to try to make them mean
> something other than what they meant!
>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf
> 5) "you snip and run": you have not pointed to a single relevant comment I
> have not responded to. Generally multiple times. You are repetitive.
>
> 6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. None.
Bullshit. You lied about the references you posted for using soft
science in a positive light. You posted a set, and I showed that 2 of
the three didn't talk about soft sciences, and 1 used it negatively.
Then you posted more, with half not referencing soft sciences, and the
other half using them negatively. I asked for references, and you
said, here these are the references you're looking for. You lied about
reading them, and you lied about their contents. Twice. Any comment on
that?
> > Let me know when you're not like the rest of COLA, and don't pretend to not
> > know what I mean by that.
>
> You want to know I am not like what you accuse me of with *no* support.
> Maybe you can start by supporting your accusations. I doubt it.
Just did, repeatedly.
> > I started out with two posts answering your questions, and you decided to
> > argue it from there (even going to far as to agree with me while arguing). I'm
> > dumbfounded, but I must say for a while there I had a really good laugh.
>
> You argued against me... and it turns out the whole debate was because you
> not only could not understand my metaphor showing to dissimilar things which
> had the similarity of using different UIs in the same system, you do not
> even know what a metaphor is!
>
> Hey, maybe you can explain why the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong:
>
> <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377872/metaphor>
> -----
> figure of speech that implies comparison between two
> unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an
> explicit comparison signalled by the words like or as.
> -----
>
> How about these sources?
How about them?
> <http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/metaphor.html>
> -----
> Metaphor comparison of two unlike things using the verb "to
> be" and not using like or as as in a simile.
> -----
>
> <http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm>
> -----
> A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made
> between two unlike things that actually have something in
> common.
> -----
>
> <http://www.infoplease.com/cig/grammar-style/mixed-metaphors-dollar-la...
> -short.html>
> -----
> A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unlike
> things.
> -----
>
> <http://homeschooling.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_mini_lesson_on_metaph...
> _simile>
> -----
> Metaphors are comparisons between two unlike objects.
> -----
>
> What makes you think you are right and *every* source we have found supports
> my view? Do you not see where that is absolutely irrational of you?
Every source except dictionaries. Every source like www.bankoktimes.com.
> Really... if you cannot see where you are wrong, you are just flat out
> deluding yourself.
>
Right...
cc
> Hadron stated in post ll0g67-aqp....@news.eternal-september.org on 3/8/10
Well that's a curious interpretation of the facts. Now you're calling
out to Hadron to rule on your side? No, that's not typical COLA
bullshit at all, saying "see person x agrees with me." Not one bit.
Snit
57ccdca5-4e41-49d9...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
5:49 PM:
>>> Well that would depend on which post you were talking about, now
>>> wouldn't it?
>>
>> The one you were talking about in *both* quotes, above. �Let us not pretend
>> otherwise!
>
>
> Right, and both of those posts came from two different contexts, did
> they not?
Yeah, the same comment in the same post is in two different contexts. I buy
that. LOL!
>>> Was my response to Hadron about consistency between systems? No. In general
>>> in this thread did we discuss consistency between systems? Yes. This is not
>>> hard to understand.
>>>
>> Please show where the context was different.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bdc60a1306221a30?hl=
> en&dmode=source
>
> Context #1: Statement made in response your consistency across
> multiple distros statement.
I made no such comment.
In any case, the quote in question is not found in that post:
cc #1
-----
My response was not about consistency, system to system.
-----
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5ac8cdffad4164?hl=
> en&dmode=source
>
> Context #2: Response to Hadron's statement of "Its clear you are not
> sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as usually sharp as you
> seems to totally miss the importance of consistent UIs." Note he was
> talking about consistent UIs in general. I pointed out that his
> statement was inaccurate, and in fact he had quoted me on the extreme
> case of having applications consistent across all systems, so no I did
> not miss the importance of consistent UIs. You snipped this from all
> subsequent posts you made. I would say I'm not sure why, but I am sure
> why.
The quote in question is not in that post. Again, the quote:
cc #2
-----
No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
operating systems.
-----
Your claim of using incorrect context is not supported by pointing to posts
where your comments are not even found!
...
>> By the way, in regards to your accusations / claims:
>>
>> 1) "you think all metaphors fail": your claim, out of context, is not
>> accurate. �I think metaphors can be wonderfully successful - but people who
>> take them too far or who take them literally fail to understand the
>> metaphor. �In that way, sure, "all metaphors fail", but without the context
>> you are twisting the meaning of my words.
>
> That is not out of context. That is a direct quote from you.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a21c562ec7f284b1?hl=
> en&dmode=source
From that post:
You have made the rather silly claim that I do not know what
an metaphor is, and here you are showing you have no idea.
Hint: *ALL* metaphors fail at some level. All. If they did
not, they would not be metaphors but direct descriptions.
And all you got from that is "all metaphors fail."
As I said - yanked from context. And since that quote I have been even more
clear. Yet you *still* do not understand. Whatever.
>> 2) "a room is dissimilar to a pigsty when talking about 'your room is a
>> pigsty'": remember, they *are* dissimilar:
>>
>> <http://www.education.com/activity/article/Metaphor_Simile_middle/>
>> � � -----
>> � � Metaphor: comparing two dissimilar things as though one is
>> � � actually the other, as in "Your room is a pigsty." Is there
>> � � really dirt and slop in your child's room? Of course not, but
>> � � by linking the two, you send a clear message: your room is a
>> � � mess, and it's time to clean it up!
>> � � -----
>>
>> You have no counter to this. �You just deny it.
>
> My counter is that www.education.com gave a shitty description of a
> metaphor. The room is SIMILAR to a pigsty, which is why the metaphor
> works. If it was a clean room, then the room would be DISSIMILAR to a
> pigsty, in which case the metaphor is a shitty one.
Again: you are claiming you are an authority over dozens of sources,
including Encyclopedia Britannica, who all say pretty much the same thing.
In other words: you do not understand the concept of a metaphor.
>> 3) "you flip flop on your stance": you have repeated this accusation but
>> failed to show any such flip flopping.
>
> Half the time you wanted to argue about a single system, the other
> half multiple systems.
Where? I have noted where you got confused on this in the past, as has
Hardon. Now you claim it again. Quote it.
But you will not.
>> 4) "you quote without context": you have yet to show where - though I just
>> showed where you took my words out of context to try to make them mean
>> something other than what they meant!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf
Evidence. Do you know what it is?
>> 5) "you snip and run": you have not pointed to a single relevant comment I
>> have not responded to. �Generally multiple times. �You are repetitive.
>
>>
>> 6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. �None.
>
>
> Bullshit. You lied about the references you posted for using soft
> science in a positive light.
Took me a minute to even figure out what you were referencing - you are
running from this debate by referencing the debate where you proved you know
*nothing* of the science behind UI development. Why bring that up again?
Are you feeling too humiliated in this thread by dozens of sources,
including the Encyclopedia Britannica, which prove you wrong?
> You posted a set, and I showed that 2 of the three didn't talk about soft
> sciences, and 1 used it negatively. Then you posted more, with half not
> referencing soft sciences, and the other half using them negatively. I asked
> for references, and you said, here these are the references you're looking
> for. You lied about reading them, and you lied about their contents. Twice.
> Any comment on that?
You are focusing on your past accusations. From another debate. In other
words: you are waving your white flag. I get it - you have nothing of value
to say.
...
>> You argued against me... and it turns out the whole debate was because you
>> not only could not understand my metaphor showing to dissimilar things which
>> had the similarity of using different UIs in the same system, you do not
>> even know what a metaphor is!
>>
>> Hey, maybe you can explain why the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong:
>>
>> <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377872/metaphor>
>> � � -----
>> � � figure of speech that implies comparison between two
>> � � unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an
>> � � explicit comparison signalled by the words like or as.
>> � � -----
>>
>> How about these sources?
>
> How about them?
You claim they are *all* wrong. Every one of them. Somehow you are the
authority and they are just all wrong.
You are delusional. Dozens of sources agreeing with my view... not a
single one agreeing with yours. On a simple concept: what is a metaphor.
You simply have no idea.
Several of those *are* dictionaries. And you claim they are all wrong.
>> Really... if you cannot see where you are wrong, you are just flat out
>> deluding yourself.
>
> Right...
When you claim you are right and *every* source is wrong, about a meaning of
a word, you are being delusional. It is that simple.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4b98b385-5e43-43ce...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 3/9/10
5:52 PM:
>>> Nobody has claimed that an app cant behave differently on another OS on
>>> another WM/DE �*IF* it is then consistent with the other applications in
>>> that same environment.
>>
>>> I think you have allowed your dislike for Snit's persistence to jaundice
>>> your views.
>>
>> Curious if you have continued to follow this rather absurd thread. Comes
>> down to cc, I think, saying he agrees with the UI comments (the point of the
>> thread) but then saying that not only does he think my metaphor was bad
>> (even though it did as I wished and showed why a system with multiple UIs is
>> problematic), but claiming that he knows what a metaphor is but that dozens
>> of sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (and myself), get it
>> wrong.
>>
>> Yeah, his big complain is that I agree with the Encyclopedia Britannica and
>> every other source we could find on what a metaphor is.
>>
>> I will grant him this - at least he is funny. �:)
>>
>
>
> Well that's a curious interpretation of the facts. Now you're calling
> out to Hadron to rule on your side? No, that's not typical COLA
> bullshit at all, saying "see person x agrees with me." Not one bit.
I suspect Hadron will agree with me, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the
rest of the dozen of sources that you claim are wrong. Why would he not?
Do you think he is as delusional as you are?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 5:49 PM:
>
> >>> Well that would depend on which post you were talking about, now
> >>> wouldn't it?
>
> >> The one you were talking about in *both* quotes, above. Let us not pretend
> >> otherwise!
>
> > Right, and both of those posts came from two different contexts, did
> > they not?
>
> Yeah, the same comment in the same post is in two different contexts. I buy
> that. LOL!
You really are a fucking moron.
> >>> Was my response to Hadron about consistency between systems? No. In general
> >>> in this thread did we discuss consistency between systems? Yes. This is not
> >>> hard to understand.
>
> >> Please show where the context was different.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bdc60a13062...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > Context #1: Statement made in response your consistency across
> > multiple distros statement.
>
> I made no such comment.
>
> In any case, the quote in question is not found in that post:
>
> cc #1
> -----
> My response was not about consistency, system to system.
> -----
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ce5ac8cdffa...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > Context #2: Response to Hadron's statement of "Its clear you are not
> > sure. I'm at a loss to understand how someone as usually sharp as you
> > seems to totally miss the importance of consistent UIs." Note he was
> > talking about consistent UIs in general. I pointed out that his
> > statement was inaccurate, and in fact he had quoted me on the extreme
> > case of having applications consistent across all systems, so no I did
> > not miss the importance of consistent UIs. You snipped this from all
> > subsequent posts you made. I would say I'm not sure why, but I am sure
> > why.
>
> The quote in question is not in that post. Again, the quote:
>
> cc #2
> -----
> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
> operating systems.
> -----
>
> Your claim of using incorrect context is not supported by pointing to posts
> where your comments are not even found!
>
Oh my god! Here's where you got it all wrong to begin with:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/53161abe9a55bc2e?hl=en&dmode=source
"And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency
within a system to consistency system to system." I pointed out that
my quote was NOT used in that context when responding to Hadron. You
really are an idiot. The statements you quote, came after this, and
make complete sense when referring to the difference between
responding to Hadron, and responding to you. How can you not get this?
I can't explain it any more. It's common sense really.
> >> 6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. None.
>
> > Bullshit. You lied about the references you posted for using soft
> > science in a positive light.
>
> Took me a minute to even figure out what you were referencing - you are
> running from this debate by referencing the debate where you proved you know
> *nothing* of the science behind UI development. Why bring that up again?
> Are you feeling too humiliated in this thread by dozens of sources,
> including the Encyclopedia Britannica, which prove you wrong?
Right, those sources prove me wrong. And right, I know nothing about
UI development, Mr. "I took classes on HCI general concepts and
experiments in UIs."
> > You posted a set, and I showed that 2 of the three didn't talk about soft
> > sciences, and 1 used it negatively. Then you posted more, with half not
> > referencing soft sciences, and the other half using them negatively. I asked
> > for references, and you said, here these are the references you're looking
> > for. You lied about reading them, and you lied about their contents. Twice.
> > Any comment on that?
>
> You are focusing on your past accusations. From another debate. In other
> words: you are waving your white flag. I get it - you have nothing of value
> to say.
>
Ahh, so you admit you lied.
cc
Again, you totally miss the point, because you're retarded. I don't
give a fuck who Hadron agrees with, and neither should you. That is
COLA bullshit.
Snit
10b0a93a-043f-4faa...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
4:56 AM:
>>> Well that's a curious interpretation of the facts. Now you're calling
>>> out to Hadron to rule on your side? No, that's not typical COLA
>>> bullshit at all, saying "see person x agrees with me." Not one bit.
>>
>> I suspect Hadron will agree with me, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the
>> rest of the dozen of sources that you claim are wrong. �Why would he not?
>> Do you think he is as delusional as you are?
>>
>
> Again, you totally miss the point, because you're retarded. I don't
> give a fuck who Hadron agrees with, and neither should you. That is
> COLA bullshit.
Who said I care who he agrees with? I said I *suspect* he will agree with
me and with the Encyclopedia Britannica and with the rest of the dozens of
sources you claim are all wrong.
He might surprise me. That would be interesting.
Curious what makes you think you are right and *all* those sources are
wrong. Also wondering if you have even a tiny shred of support? So far you
have claimed Webster's, but Webster's is consistent with the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
e362044a-d40d-4839...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
4:55 AM:
...
>> Yeah, the same comment in the same post is in two different contexts. �I buy
>> that. �LOL!
>
> You really are a fucking moron.
I disagree that your same comment, posted just once, can be in two different
contexts. Yeah, that warrants you calling me names. LOL!
...
>> The quote in question is not in that post. �Again, the quote:
>>
>> � cc #2
>> � � -----
>> � � No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
>> � � operating systems.
>> � � -----
>>
>> Your claim of using incorrect context is not supported by pointing to posts
>> where your comments are not even found!
>
> Oh my god! Here's where you got it all wrong to begin with:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/53161abe9a55bc2e?hl=
> en&dmode=source
The quote in question is not in that post. You keep getting it wrong. I
think that is funny. And a little sad.
>>>> 6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. �None.
>>
>>> Bullshit. You lied about the references you posted for using soft
>>> science in a positive light.
>>
>> Took me a minute to even figure out what you were referencing - you are
>> running from this debate by referencing the debate where you proved you know
>> *nothing* of the science behind UI development. �Why bring that up again?
>> Are you feeling too humiliated in this thread by dozens of sources,
>> including the Encyclopedia Britannica, which prove you wrong?
>
> Right, those sources prove me wrong. And right, I know nothing about
> UI development, Mr. "I took classes on HCI general concepts and
> experiments in UIs."
Who said you know nothing of UI development? Granted: I am not saying you
do - when you are arrogant enough to think you are right and dozens of
sources, including Britannica, are wrong, you likely have learned little
else. But the comment was about the fact you showed you know very little
about the *science* behind UI development. You potentially could know other
things about UI development.
...
>> You are focusing on your past accusations. �From another debate. �In other
>> words: you are waving your white flag. �I get it - you have nothing of value
>> to say.
>
> Ahh, so you admit you lied.
Huh? I am not following you on one of your many side issues... and you take
that as an admission of dishonesty. What? You are just making things up...
waving your white flag.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 4:55 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >> Yeah, the same comment in the same post is in two different contexts. I buy
> >> that. LOL!
>
> > You really are a fucking moron.
>
> I disagree that your same comment, posted just once, can be in two different
> contexts. Yeah, that warrants you calling me names. LOL!
>
> ...
>
> >> The quote in question is not in that post. Again, the quote:
>
> >> cc #2
> >> -----
> >> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
> >> operating systems.
> >> -----
>
> >> Your claim of using incorrect context is not supported by pointing to posts
> >> where your comments are not even found!
>
> > Oh my god! Here's where you got it all wrong to begin with:
>
> > en&dmode=source
>
> The quote in question is not in that post. You keep getting it wrong. I
> think that is funny. And a little sad.
What's sad is how far you go out of your way to misunderstand. The
quote in question is referring to that original post, like I said in
the part you snipped out. The original post where you took everything
out of context. You have become increasingly dumb as this thread has
gone on. You even snipped the explanation I gave. Funny, but not
surprising.
"And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency
within a system to consistency system to system." I pointed out that
my quote was NOT used in that context when responding to Hadron. You
really are an idiot. The statements you quote, came after this, and
make complete sense when referring to the difference between
responding to Hadron, and responding to you. How can you not get
this?
I can't explain it any more. It's common sense really.
> >>>> 6) "you flat our lie": you have offered no evidence of this. None.
>
> >>> Bullshit. You lied about the references you posted for using soft
> >>> science in a positive light.
>
> >> Took me a minute to even figure out what you were referencing - you are
> >> running from this debate by referencing the debate where you proved you know
> >> *nothing* of the science behind UI development. Why bring that up again?
> >> Are you feeling too humiliated in this thread by dozens of sources,
> >> including the Encyclopedia Britannica, which prove you wrong?
>
> > Right, those sources prove me wrong. And right, I know nothing about
> > UI development, Mr. "I took classes on HCI general concepts and
> > experiments in UIs."
>
> Who said you know nothing of UI development? Granted: I am not saying you
> do - when you are arrogant enough to think you are right and dozens of
> sources, including Britannica, are wrong, you likely have learned little
> else. But the comment was about the fact you showed you know very little
> about the *science* behind UI development. You potentially could know other
> things about UI development.
>
So I know about UI development, but I don't know about the science
behind it? You're a moron. I've taken classes about the science and
the art behind HCI, and they weren't "HCI general concepts" and
"experiments in UIs" I'll tell you that.
As far as the dozens of sources go, I can find dozens of sources
throughout history claiming the sun revolved around the earth (most
from much more respectable scientists that www.bangkoktimes.com). Does
that make it correct? Webster and English departments seem to fall on
my side. I'll leave you www.12manage.com and potentially Hadron.
>
> >> You are focusing on your past accusations. From another debate. In other
> >> words: you are waving your white flag. I get it - you have nothing of value
> >> to say.
>
> > Ahh, so you admit you lied.
>
> Huh? I am not following you on one of your many side issues... and you take
> that as an admission of dishonesty. What? You are just making things up...
> waving your white flag.
>
I said, "You lied." You said, "Where?" I said, "Right here." You said,
"That's from the past." That's an admission, or rather an
acknowledgement. You and I both know that you lied, and I'm glad you
finally manned up and admitted it.
cc
Well there's another lie. Webster's is not consistent with Britannica.
Has Britannica ever made a mistake?
Snit
0b8d2783-4781-4228...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
11:11 AM:
...
>> The quote in question is not in that post. �You keep getting it wrong. �I
>> think that is funny. �And a little sad.
>
> What's sad is how far you go out of your way to misunderstand.
I understand the quotes in question are not even in the posts you point to.
Again:
cc #1
-----
My response was not about consistency, system to system.
-----
cc #2
-----
No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
operating systems.
-----
You keep saying I am taking those quotes out of context - but when asked to
support it, you point to posts where those quotes do not even appear! I, on
the other hand, happily point to the context:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf>
I commented on your first quote, and then you responded referencing that
quote.
This is cut and dry. No wiggle room. But still you squirm. :)
> The quote in question is referring to that original post, like I said in the
> part you snipped out. The original post where you took everything out of
> context. You have become increasingly dumb as this thread has gone on. You
> even snipped the explanation I gave. Funny, but not surprising.
You can twist all you want... but as long as you are avoiding the posts
where you made the contradictory comments, you will *never* show the context
in which they were said.
> "And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
> system to consistency system to system." I pointed out that my quote was NOT
> used in that context when responding to Hadron. You really are an idiot. The
> statements you quote, came after this, and make complete sense when referring
> to the difference between responding to Hadron, and responding to you. How can
> you not get this? I can't explain it any more. It's common sense really.
Do you understand the concept of context? You cannot show the context
something was said in by pointing to something other than the comments!
By the way: You never did explain why you kept talking about consistency
system to system. Neither Hadron nor I were.
...
>>> Right, those sources prove me wrong. And right, I know nothing about
>>> UI development, Mr. "I took classes on HCI general concepts and
>>> experiments in UIs."
>>
>> Who said you know nothing of UI development? �Granted: I am not saying you
>> do - when you are arrogant enough to think you are right and dozens of
>> sources, including Britannica, are wrong, you likely have learned little
>> else. �But the comment was about the fact you showed you know very little
>> about the *science* behind UI development. �You potentially could know other
>> things about UI development.
>
> So I know about UI development, but I don't know about the science
> behind it?
That is your claim... remember, you denied that there even was science as
you insisted you knew about it. But this is not even the topic of the
current debate. You are just running from your current BS by referring to
your past BS.
> You're a moron. I've taken classes about the science and the art behind HCI,
> and they weren't "HCI general concepts" and "experiments in UIs" I'll tell you
> that.
Good for you to admit, finally, that there is science behind UI development.
I do not believe you had done so before.
> As far as the dozens of sources go, I can find dozens of sources
> throughout history claiming the sun revolved around the earth (most
> from much more respectable scientists that www.bangkoktimes.com). Does
> that make it correct? Webster and English departments seem to fall on
> my side. I'll leave you www.12manage.com and potentially Hadron.
Webster's is consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica and rest of the
dozens of sources you claimed to disagree with. You simply have *no* source
that denies the fact that metaphors shows similarities in dissimilar things
(two unlike entities). Here are some Webster's definitions:
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
-----
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in
drowning in money)
-----
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed
-----
a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which
a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing
is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, �all the
world's a stage�)
-----
Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
-----
The transference of the relation between one set of objects
to another set for the purpose of brief explanation
-----
Well, what do you know! Not a single one is contrary to the idea that a
metaphor shows a similarity between dissimilar things (two unlike entities).
Maybe you meant your cousin Webster? :)
>>>> You are focusing on your past accusations. �From another debate. �In other
>>>> words: you are waving your white flag. �I get it - you have nothing of
>>>> value to say.
>>>>
>>> Ahh, so you admit you lied.
>>
>> Huh? �I am not following you on one of your many side issues... and you take
>> that as an admission of dishonesty. �What? �You are just making things up...
>> waving your white flag.
>
> I said, "You lied." You said, "Where?" I said, "Right here." You said, "That's
> from the past." That's an admission, or rather an acknowledgement. You and I
> both know that you lied, and I'm glad you finally manned up and admitted it.
Ah, you are just desperately twisting as you wave your white flag. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
f0b45761-c8b2-4994...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
11:14 AM:
> On Mar 10, 12:41�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 10b0a93a-043f-4faa-adef-1f20781fc...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
>> 4:56 AM:
>>
>>>>> Well that's a curious interpretation of the facts. Now you're calling
>>>>> out to Hadron to rule on your side? No, that's not typical COLA
>>>>> bullshit at all, saying "see person x agrees with me." Not one bit.
>>
>>>> I suspect Hadron will agree with me, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the
>>>> rest of the dozen of sources that you claim are wrong. Why would he not?
>>>> Do you think he is as delusional as you are?
>>
>>> Again, you totally miss the point, because you're retarded. I don't
>>> give a fuck who Hadron agrees with, and neither should you. That is
>>> COLA bullshit.
>>
>> Who said I care who he agrees with? �I said I *suspect* he will agree with
>> me and with the Encyclopedia Britannica and with the rest of the dozens of
>> sources you claim are all wrong.
>>
>> He might surprise me. �That would be interesting.
>>
>> Curious what makes you think you are right and *all* those sources are
>> wrong. �Also wondering if you have even a tiny shred of support? �So far you
>> have claimed Webster's, but Webster's is consistent with the Encyclopedia
>> Britannica. �
>
> Well there's another lie. Webster's is not consistent with Britannica.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377872/metaphor>
-----
figure of speech that implies comparison between two
unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an
explicit comparison signalled by the words �like� or �as.�
-----
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
-----
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in
drowning in money)
-----
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed
-----
a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which
a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing
is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, �all the
world's a stage�)
-----
Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
-----
The transference of the relation between one set of objects
to another set for the purpose of brief explanation
-----
Where do you think they are in disagreement?
> Has Britannica ever made a mistake?
Sure. But you have yet to show why Britannica and the rest of the dozens of
sources you insist are wrong... so far, your argument comes down to: you say
so.
You have not found a single source to contradict the idea that a metaphor
shows a similarity between two dissimilar things (to unlike entities). This
is what a metaphor is... the fact you mocked me for not knowing what a
metaphor is when you have now made it clear you have no idea is just
amazingly hilarious. I shall have fun with this thread for a while...
mocking your ignorance. I do that because of your name calling and
rudeness. If you were not so rude, I would not mock your ignorance at all.
So you know, though, if you cease being rude and dishonest I shall not
continue to bring up your ignorance on this. I am very forgiving. You do
not need to even apologize (though, face it, it would be the right thing for
you to do).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britann
> ica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 11:11 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >> The quote in question is not in that post. You keep getting it wrong. I
> >> think that is funny. And a little sad.
>
> > What's sad is how far you go out of your way to misunderstand.
>
> I understand the quotes in question are not even in the posts you point to.
> Again:
>
> cc #1
> -----
> My response was not about consistency, system to system.
> -----
>
> cc #2
> -----
> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
> operating systems.
> -----
>
> You keep saying I am taking those quotes out of context - but when asked to
> support it, you point to posts where those quotes do not even appear! I, on
> the other hand, happily point to the context:
>
>
> I commented on your first quote, and then you responded referencing that
> quote.
>
> This is cut and dry. No wiggle room. But still you squirm. :)
>
> > The quote in question is referring to that original post, like I said in the
> > part you snipped out. The original post where you took everything out of
> > context. You have become increasingly dumb as this thread has gone on. You
> > even snipped the explanation I gave. Funny, but not surprising.
>
> You can twist all you want... but as long as you are avoiding the posts
> where you made the contradictory comments, you will *never* show the context
> in which they were said.
"My response was not about consistency, system to system." refers to
the response I made to Hadron (which if you hadn't snipped the context
you'd see that), where I quoted myself. The response as a whole was
not about consistency, system to system.
"No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
systems." is of course general statement in the context where it was
taken from. In this thread you have mentioned inconsistencies across
operating systems. So I have talked about them as well.
As you can see "my response" is referring to a particular response. "I
do not deny that I mentioned" refers to everything I have mentioned.
This is of course, very obvious to everyone but you.
> > "And now you are back to talking moving goal posts from consistency within a
> > system to consistency system to system." I pointed out that my quote was NOT
> > used in that context when responding to Hadron. You really are an idiot. The
> > statements you quote, came after this, and make complete sense when referring
> > to the difference between responding to Hadron, and responding to you. How can
> > you not get this? I can't explain it any more. It's common sense really.
>
> Do you understand the concept of context? You cannot show the context
> something was said in by pointing to something other than the comments!
Those comments were made in the CONTEXT of my response to Hadron. How
is this so hard to understand?
> By the way: You never did explain why you kept talking about consistency
> system to system. Neither Hadron nor I were.
>
Hadron wasn't. You were.
>
> >>> Right, those sources prove me wrong. And right, I know nothing about
> >>> UI development, Mr. "I took classes on HCI general concepts and
> >>> experiments in UIs."
>
> >> Who said you know nothing of UI development? Granted: I am not saying you
> >> do - when you are arrogant enough to think you are right and dozens of
> >> sources, including Britannica, are wrong, you likely have learned little
> >> else. But the comment was about the fact you showed you know very little
> >> about the *science* behind UI development. You potentially could know other
> >> things about UI development.
>
> > So I know about UI development, but I don't know about the science
> > behind it?
>
> That is your claim... remember, you denied that there even was science as
> you insisted you knew about it. But this is not even the topic of the
> current debate. You are just running from your current BS by referring to
> your past BS.
Well here's another lie. I never said there wasn't science behind HCI.
Please provide a quote for that. In fact, you'll find I openly
acknowledged that there was science behind HCI. I claimed like many
others, that that alone doesn't make HCI a science.
> > You're a moron. I've taken classes about the science and the art behind HCI,
> > and they weren't "HCI general concepts" and "experiments in UIs" I'll tell you
> > that.
>
> Good for you to admit, finally, that there is science behind UI development.
> I do not believe you had done so before.
I always have. That does not make HCI a science.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/18e5760653b2ea28?hl=en&dmode=source
[me] "Double-blind studies are scientific. HCI uses double blind
studies. HCI is not science"
Your lies are really starting to add up.
> > As far as the dozens of sources go, I can find dozens of sources
> > throughout history claiming the sun revolved around the earth (most
> > from much more respectable scientists thatwww.bangkoktimes.com). Does
> > that make it correct? Webster and English departments seem to fall on
> > my side. I'll leave youwww.12manage.comand potentially Hadron.
>
> Webster's is consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica and rest of the
> dozens of sources you claimed to disagree with. You simply have *no* source
> that denies the fact that metaphors shows similarities in dissimilar things
> (two unlike entities). Here are some Webster's definitions:
>
> Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
> -----
> a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
> denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
> another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in
> drowning in money)
> -----
"Likeness"
> Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed
> -----
> a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which
> a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing
> is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, all the
> world's a stage )
> -----
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
> -----
> The transference of the relation between one set of objects
> to another set for the purpose of brief explanation
> -----
"Relation"
> Well, what do you know! Not a single one is contrary to the idea that a
> metaphor shows a similarity between dissimilar things (two unlike entities).
Umm, apparently you are reading something else entirely when you make
that statement. Two are completely contrary, the middle one is neither
contrary nor supportive.
>
> Maybe you meant your cousin Webster? :)
Maybe. Maybe you can't read? :)
> >>>> You are focusing on your past accusations. From another debate. In other
> >>>> words: you are waving your white flag. I get it - you have nothing of
> >>>> value to say.
>
> >>> Ahh, so you admit you lied.
>
> >> Huh? I am not following you on one of your many side issues... and you take
> >> that as an admission of dishonesty. What? You are just making things up...
> >> waving your white flag.
>
> > I said, "You lied." You said, "Where?" I said, "Right here." You said, "That's
> > from the past." That's an admission, or rather an acknowledgement. You and I
> > both know that you lied, and I'm glad you finally manned up and admitted it.
>
> Ah, you are just desperately twisting as you wave your white flag. OK.
>
Your lack of response is noted.
cc
> > ica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
>
Yeah, you really mocked my ignorance all right. I mean you said, "sea
of troubles fails because where is the water?" and all metaphors fail.
What you call mocking my ignorance, I call putting yours up for full
display. But, I will apologize for being rude, as soon as you
apologize for lying. Seems fair to me, although I consider blatant
lies to be much worse than rudeness.
Snit
55d96476-2379-4ef3...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
1:54 PM:
...
You have no answer to this. You cannot show where Webster's - any version -
is inconsistent with Britannica:
cc:
-----
Webster's is not consistent with Britannica.
-----
Your claim... but you cannot back it up. Face it: every single source we
can find backs up my view of metaphors showing similarities between
dissimilar entities. Every source. Dozens of them.
And you have no reasoned comeback. Nothing. You are not willing to admit
you are wrong, and - worse yet - you are insisting on claiming I am, when
not even you at this point can actually believe it. That is unless you are
insisting you are completely delusional.
>>> Has Britannica ever made a mistake?
>>
>> Sure. �But you have yet to show why Britannica and the rest of the dozens of
>> sources you insist are wrong... so far, your argument comes down to: you say
>> so.
>>
>> You have not found a single source to contradict the idea that a metaphor
>> shows a similarity between two dissimilar things (to unlike entities). �This
>> is what a metaphor is... the fact you mocked me for not knowing what a
>> metaphor is when you have now made it clear you have no idea is just
>> amazingly hilarious. �I shall have fun with this thread for a while...
>> mocking your ignorance. �I do that because of your name calling and
>> rudeness. �If you were not so rude, I would not mock your ignorance at all.
>>
>> So you know, though, if you cease being rude and dishonest I shall not
>> continue to bring up your ignorance on this. �I am very forgiving. �You do
>> not need to even apologize (though, face it, it would be the right thing for
>> you to do).
...
> Yeah, you really mocked my ignorance all right. I mean you said, "sea
> of troubles fails because where is the water?" and all metaphors fail.
See: you whine about my taking things out of context, but there you are,
ripping *three words out of a sentence* - not even quoting an entire
sentence! - just to try to present my words in a bad light, as if I were
saying that metaphors cannot be a very successful means of presenting an
idea. They fail when someone takes them literally or takes them too far,
such as with the metaphor of a sea of troubles being taken to mean that
there should be fish swimming in your troubles or some other nonsense.
Yeah, when someone absurdly does that, *all* metaphors will fail. All.
And you have not answered the question: why do you think Britannica and
*all* sources we have found agree with my view that metaphors are showing a
similarity in dissimilar things (unlike entities). You have noted that
Britannica is not always right - and I agree. But that is in no way
showing that the dozens of sources I have shown in agreement with my
position are all wrong.
Will you please do so now: why do you think you are right when all these
many, many sources are in agreement with my view?
> What you call mocking my ignorance, I call putting yours up for full
> display.
The audacity I have to be in almost 100% agreement with every one of the
dozens of sources that have been posted! Such arrogance on my part! LOL!
> But, I will apologize for being rude, as soon as you
> apologize for lying. Seems fair to me, although I consider blatant
> lies to be much worse than rudeness.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
68b5f6ec-d063-4a21...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 3/10/10
1:51 PM:
...
>> I understand the quotes in question are not even in the posts you point to.
>> Again:
>>
>> � cc #1
>> � � -----
>> � � My response was not about consistency, system to system.
>> � � -----
>>
>> � cc #2
>> � � -----
>> � � No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
>> � � operating systems.
>> � � -----
>>
>> You keep saying I am taking those quotes out of context - but when asked to
>> support it, you point to posts where those quotes do not even appear! �I, on
>> the other hand, happily point to the context:
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf>
>>
>> I commented on your first quote, and then you responded referencing that
>> quote.
>>
>> This is cut and dry. �No wiggle room. �But still you squirm. �:)
And you have no response to this. OK.
...
>> You can twist all you want... but as long as you are avoiding the posts
>> where you made the contradictory comments, you will *never* show the context
>> in which they were said.
>
> "My response was not about consistency, system to system." refers to
> the response I made to Hadron (which if you hadn't snipped the context
> you'd see that), where I quoted myself. The response as a whole was
> not about consistency, system to system.
Ah, you are nit picking the idea that while you talked about consistency
system to system that was not your main point... not even denying any more
that you moved goal posts when you brought up system to system consistency.
LOL!
> "No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
> systems." is of course general statement in the context where it was
> taken from. In this thread you have mentioned inconsistencies across
> operating systems. So I have talked about them as well.
>
> As you can see "my response" is referring to a particular response. "I
> do not deny that I mentioned" refers to everything I have mentioned.
> This is of course, very obvious to everyone but you.
Remember: I have already shown the context:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf>
You can claim that your second comment was not about your first - but it
*clearly* was.
...
>> Do you understand the concept of context? �You cannot show the context
>> something was said in by pointing to something other than the comments!
>
> Those comments were made in the CONTEXT of my response to Hadron. How
> is this so hard to understand?
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232976cf>
I understand you are working to avoid that. OK.
>> By the way: You never did explain why you kept talking about consistency
>> system to system. �Neither Hadron nor I were.
>
> Hadron wasn't. You were.
Yet you cannot quote where I did so. When you first made that claim you did
try - and were shown you were wrong. Now you have *nothing* to back up your
claim even poorly.
You brought it up. Nobody else. Now you want to deny it. OK.
...
>>> So I know about UI development, but I don't know about the science
>>> behind it?
>>
>> That is your claim... remember, you denied that there even was science as
>> you insisted you knew about it. �But this is not even the topic of the
>> current debate. �You are just running from your current BS by referring to
>> your past BS.
>
> Well here's another lie. I never said there wasn't science behind HCI.
You spent enormous time arguing with my very, very well supported view that
there is. Here is just one example:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5199d47419982432>
Snit:
Explain why you think the science behind HCI is not science.
All you are doing is nay-saying and not making a point.
cc:
I've repeatedly said why it is not a science. It is not a
science because there are no rules and proofs of its
concepts. And there can never be.
Now compare that to your next sentence, where you openly admit I was right
about the very thing you insisted I was wrong about.
> Please provide a quote for that. In fact, you'll find I openly
> acknowledged that there was science behind HCI.
I am glad you have learned I was right. Excellent. Nothing wrong with
changing your mind... just shows you are learning.
> I claimed like many others, that that alone doesn't make HCI a science.
That, alone. Um, OK.
>>> You're a moron. I've taken classes about the science and the art behind HCI,
>>> and they weren't "HCI general concepts" and "experiments in UIs" I'll tell
>>> you
>>> that.
>>
>> Good for you to admit, finally, that there is science behind UI development.
>> I do not believe you had done so before.
>
> I always have.
Obviously incorrect:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5199d47419982432>
Snit:
Explain why you think the science behind HCI is not science.
All you are doing is nay-saying and not making a point.
cc:
I've repeatedly said why it is not a science. It is not a
science because there are no rules and proofs of its
concepts. And there can never be.
But again, good to see where you have grown in your views.
> That does not make HCI a science.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/18e5760653b2ea28?hl=
> en&dmode=source
>
> [me] "Double-blind studies are scientific. HCI uses double blind
> studies. HCI is not science"
>
> Your lies are really starting to add up.
Having been shown the proof of my view in the Google record, do you now
agree I am right, or are you going to insist that I have somehow pulled
Google into this "lie" of mine?
>>> As far as the dozens of sources go, I can find dozens of sources
>>> throughout history claiming the sun revolved around the earth (most
>>> from much more respectable scientists thatwww.bangkoktimes.com). Does
>>> that make it correct? Webster and English departments seem to fall on
>>> my side. I'll leave youwww.12manage.comand potentially Hadron.
>>
>> Webster's is consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica and rest of the
>> dozens of sources you claimed to disagree with. �You simply have *no* source
>> that denies the fact that metaphors shows similarities in dissimilar things
>> (two unlike entities). �Here are some Webster's definitions:
>>
>> Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
>> � � -----
>> � � a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
>> � � denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
>> � � another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in
>> � � drowning in money)
>> � � -----
>
> "Likeness"
That is one word in the definition. OK. So?
>> Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed
>> � � -----
>> � � a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which
>> � � a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing
>> � � is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, all the
>> � � world's a stage )
>> � � -----
>>
>> Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
>> � � -----
>> � � The transference of the relation between one set of objects
>> � � to another set for the purpose of brief explanation
>> � � -----
>
> "Relation"
Another word in another definition. OK. So?
>> Well, what do you know! �Not a single one is contrary to the idea that a
>> metaphor shows a similarity between dissimilar things (two unlike entities).
>
> Umm, apparently you are reading something else entirely when you make
> that statement. Two are completely contrary, the middle one is neither
> contrary nor supportive.
They are completely consistency with the idea that a metaphor shows a
similarity (a "likeness" or perhaps a "relation") between two dissimilar
things (unlike entities). You seem to understand the first half of that
concept, but by the end of it your mind wanders.
>> Maybe you meant your cousin Webster? �:)
>
> Maybe. Maybe you can't read? :)
I can... hence how I know I a right.
...
>> Ah, you are just desperately twisting as you wave your white flag. �OK.
>>
> Your lack of response is noted.
I noted your desperate twisting. What else were you hoping for?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 1:51 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I understand the quotes in question are not even in the posts you point to.
> >> Again:
>
> >> cc #1
> >> -----
> >> My response was not about consistency, system to system.
> >> -----
>
> >> cc #2
> >> -----
> >> No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across
> >> operating systems.
> >> -----
>
> >> You keep saying I am taking those quotes out of context - but when asked to
> >> support it, you point to posts where those quotes do not even appear! I, on
> >> the other hand, happily point to the context:
>
>
> >> I commented on your first quote, and then you responded referencing that
> >> quote.
>
> >> This is cut and dry. No wiggle room. But still you squirm. :)
>
> And you have no response to this. OK.
>
I responded below, did I not?
> >> You can twist all you want... but as long as you are avoiding the posts
> >> where you made the contradictory comments, you will *never* show the context
> >> in which they were said.
>
> > "My response was not about consistency, system to system." refers to
> > the response I made to Hadron (which if you hadn't snipped the context
> > you'd see that), where I quoted myself. The response as a whole was
> > not about consistency, system to system.
>
> Ah, you are nit picking the idea that while you talked about consistency
> system to system that was not your main point... not even denying any more
> that you moved goal posts when you brought up system to system consistency.
> LOL!
No, it was not my main point, because Hadron was talking about
something totally different! I never moved goal posts, I responded
once to you, when you were talking about consistency system to system.
I responded, quoting from the discussion, to use what I said in a
different context. A 5th grader can understand this.
> > "No, I do not deny that I mentioned inconsistencies across operating
> > systems." is of course general statement in the context where it was
> > taken from. In this thread you have mentioned inconsistencies across
> > operating systems. So I have talked about them as well.
>
> > As you can see "my response" is referring to a particular response. "I
> > do not deny that I mentioned" refers to everything I have mentioned.
> > This is of course, very obvious to everyone but you.
>
> Remember: I have already shown the context:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232...>
>
> You can claim that your second comment was not about your first - but it
> *clearly* was.
>
Wow, simply wow. I mean I called you an idiot before, but I really
didn't mean it. Now, I'm starting to wonder...
From your link "Let me know when you decide if you were in response to
my comments or Hadron's." Now do you get that I can use a response
that I wrote to YOU and use it in a different context when responding
to Hadron. Does that concept mean anything to you? I mean, just answer
in general here, can one person take a quote and use it in an entirely
different context to make a point? Is that even possible? Because you
seem to be claiming it isn't.
> >> Do you understand the concept of context? You cannot show the context
> >> something was said in by pointing to something other than the comments!
>
> > Those comments were made in the CONTEXT of my response to Hadron. How
> > is this so hard to understand?
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af5734dc232...>
>
> I understand you are working to avoid that. OK.
See above.
> >> By the way: You never did explain why you kept talking about consistency
> >> system to system. Neither Hadron nor I were.
>
> > Hadron wasn't. You were.
>
> Yet you cannot quote where I did so. When you first made that claim you did
> try - and were shown you were wrong. Now you have *nothing* to back up your
> claim even poorly.
I quoted it multiple times, mostly to Hadron. Go back and read the
thread.
> You brought it up. Nobody else. Now you want to deny it. OK.
>
You brought it up, I responded to your posts. Sometimes you wanted to
change and talk about consistency in a system. I responded to those
too. Lately you've been completely wrong about metaphors, and running
from your lies. I responded to those too. I'm not saying there's
anything wrong with that, just that we both have been commenting about
the same things, even though they're not all related.
>
> >>> So I know about UI development, but I don't know about the science
> >>> behind it?
>
> >> That is your claim... remember, you denied that there even was science as
> >> you insisted you knew about it. But this is not even the topic of the
> >> current debate. You are just running from your current BS by referring to
> >> your past BS.
>
> > Well here's another lie. I never said there wasn't science behind HCI.
>
> You spent enormous time arguing with my very, very well supported view that
> there is. Here is just one example:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5199d474199...>
> Snit:
> Explain why you think the science behind HCI is not science.
> All you are doing is nay-saying and not making a point.
> cc:
> I've repeatedly said why it is not a science. It is not a
> science because there are no rules and proofs of its
> concepts. And there can never be.
>
> Now compare that to your next sentence, where you openly admit I was right
> about the very thing you insisted I was wrong about.
I was explaining why HCI is not a science, not why the science behind
HCI is not a science. That doesn't even make sense. You had no problem
discussing this in the thread, even going so far to say things like,
"You say HCI is not a science because there are no rules or proofs."
You obviously understood me then, but now you don't?
> > Please provide a quote for that. In fact, you'll find I openly
> > acknowledged that there was science behind HCI.
>
> I am glad you have learned I was right. Excellent. Nothing wrong with
> changing your mind... just shows you are learning.
That was never in dispute. In fact, you acknowledged it in that very
thread!
> > I claimed like many others, that that alone doesn't make HCI a science.
>
> That, alone. Um, OK.
We've had that discussion. You should read "Old Masters, Young
Geniuses" by Galenson. In it he discusses painters who's best work
came late in life like Cezanne, painted through experimentation. What
he describes is basically the scientific method, but used for
painting. In Snit University, that means you can get a BS in Art.
> >>> You're a moron. I've taken classes about the science and the art behind HCI,
> >>> and they weren't "HCI general concepts" and "experiments in UIs" I'll tell
> >>> you
> >>> that.
>
> >> Good for you to admit, finally, that there is science behind UI development.
> >> I do not believe you had done so before.
>
> > I always have.
>
> Obviously incorrect:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5199d474199...>
> Snit:
> Explain why you think the science behind HCI is not science.
> All you are doing is nay-saying and not making a point.
> cc:
> I've repeatedly said why it is not a science. It is not a
> science because there are no rules and proofs of its
> concepts. And there can never be.
>
> But again, good to see where you have grown in your views.
You understood that I was talking about HCI is not a science in the
thread you quote. You even mention that I admit that there is science
behind HCI in that thread! Obviously, my views have never changed.
> > That does not make HCI a science.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/18e5760653b...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > [me] "Double-blind studies are scientific. HCI uses double blind
> > studies. HCI is not science"
>
> > Your lies are really starting to add up.
>
> Having been shown the proof of my view in the Google record, do you now
> agree I am right, or are you going to insist that I have somehow pulled
> Google into this "lie" of mine?
>
Well considering you talked about your quote that is supposedly proof
in an entirely different (and correct) way in the thread you've
quoted, I have to assume you are either a liar or an idiot. Please
pick one.
>
>
> >>> As far as the dozens of sources go, I can find dozens of sources
> >>> throughout history claiming the sun revolved around the earth (most
> >>> from much more respectable scientists thatwww.bangkoktimes.com). Does
> >>> that make it correct? Webster and English departments seem to fall on
> >>> my side. I'll leave youwww.12manage.comandpotentially Hadron.
Wow. So now a metaphor shows that two dissimilar things, are in fact,
similar. Which would make them not dissimilar at all, correct? For
instance, what if I say, "Your room is similar to a pigsty." Are you
saying that your room and a pigsty are in fact, dissimilar?
> >> Maybe you meant your cousin Webster? :)
>
> > Maybe. Maybe you can't read? :)
>
> I can... hence how I know I a right.
>
Yes, ignorance IS bliss they say.
>
> >> Ah, you are just desperately twisting as you wave your white flag. OK.
>
> > Your lack of response is noted.
>
> I noted your desperate twisting. What else were you hoping for?
>
You snipped and ran, how fitting. I was hoping you would respond to
the comments I made, and maybe apologize for past transgressions which
are quickly piling up.