On 09/18/2011 05:41 AM, Xavier wrote:
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.
The only difference between that definition and most of the contents of
your posts in this thread is that it actually introduces itself as being
maybe too simplistic and therefore possibly not appropriate for a given
situation. That is a strength, not a weakness. Please think before you post.
