Timon Gehr wrote: > On 09/17/2011 10:57 AM, Josh Simmons wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Nick Sabalausky<a@a.a> wrote: >>> >>> Are you seriously trying say that that implies each successive one >>> is inherently no better than the previous? If so, then that's just >>> patently absurd. If not, then what in the world *is* your point? >>> Just to troll? >> >> No I believe the implication is that absolute quality is so absurdly >> impossible to define that it's somewhat irrelevant to even >> contemplate it. And it's certainly overly simplistic to consider it >> without putting it in the context of a given problem. > > Well, my pragmatic and simplistic definition of language quality is
Oh curb it already.
