Re: [vox-tech] A question of perl style

[Micah Cowan <micaMAPSh@cowanbox.com>]

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:34:04PM -0700, jdnewmil@dcn.davis.ca.us wrote:
> > > Because I am pointing out a potentially endless recursion by a parallel
> > > grammatical construct, and someone has to stop.  Soon. As in, I shouldn't
> > > be so oblique. :)
> > 
> > I don't see it, but I'm very very curious now.  Could you explain
> > where the potential recursion lies?
> 
> When A says his question is empty (stupid), and B says no question is
> empty, but then suggests that his own comments are empty (mindless), then
> C is obligated to point out that no comments are empty, but hints that
> doing so is empty (unnecessary), then D either points out that no comments
> are empty (tiresome), or flames out, and we have Usenet, in which it is
> poor netiquette to say your comments are empty, and especially bad to say
> it while saying someone elses comments are not empty.
> 
> I was ducking D's comments.

Okay - but questions != comments...  so the recursion is broken.  At
least, I wouldn't imply that comments can't be empty or mindless,
because I see comments of that variety every day (regular USENET
lurker ;) ) - and in fact I do see questions of the same nature every
day as well (if you read the reply that started this off, you'll see I
didn't say there's no such thing as a stupid question - I merely said
his wasn't one).

So far, it's been more like:

A says his question is empty (stupid), and B (Henry) says no question is
empty. C (me) says empty questions do in fact exist, but that A's
question doesn't fall under that set, at the same time indicating that
his own (actually, somewhat unrelated) comments are empty. D (you)
says that there is no comment x such that x is an empty commment made
by C (I'm flattered, really)...

:)

Micah