Timon Gehr wrote: > 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.
Why don't you consider doing that?
