Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
>
> Actually, those notes should have probably gone off-list, IMHO. So as not
> to bother the sensibilities of such as yourself.
Well, alright, if you want to put it that way. But I doubt that that
conversation had much significance for the others on this list. It was
certainly about a million miles off from any of the subject matter being
dealt with here.
> Also, yes there were a LOT
> of technical issues implied in the conversation, short as it was. That you
> don't recognise them speaks volumes about your actual understanding.
Okay, okay, Roeland. Enough! You're one of the wonderful, brilliant Internet
geeks who have made spam and e-commerce the hope of the future, and Dave
Farber and Dave Crocker, aside from being ignoramuses in other respects, are
the gods of cyberspace. Right on. Conceded. Happy now, Roeland?
> Need I
> remind you that "jargon" does not appear without a need. The need is
> usually a human bandwidth requirement to transmit the maximum amount of
> conceptual information, using as much shared data as possible.
Ha-ha. Conceptual information. Human bandwidth. Well, dear me, Mr. farber
would increase his bandwidth and transmit a good deal more conceptual
information if he'd take a course in remedial English. That is, if he wants
to post to this list and be taken seriously. Of course, if all he wants is
to sit around conversing in jerk-off techno-speak with his IETF chums, then
I guess his adolescent argot is enough.
> The tongue
> of techo-speak, as it were. Without it, we wouldn't be able to get anything
> done, in the engineering trade. Step into any Information Technology
> department and you'll hear these types of conversations all the time.
Will you excuse me if I decline this suggestion?
> The problem is the same as that of Jazz music composition, some of it is so
> far removed from normal listeners that there is a communications disconnect
> that is largely unrecognised, simply because it sounds familiar. "Take
> five", by David Brubeck is an example. I sounds like a fairly
> straight-forward and engaging tune, but it's written in seven/fifths time
> and can only be comfortably played in E-flat, on the piano keyboard. Normal
> listeners have no problem listening and pretending to understand it
> however. The appearance of normalacy may be deceptive.
Dave Brubeck's seven-fifths intellectualisms don't impress me. White jazz
always has to have gimmicks to compensate for its lack of feeling, swing,
and virtuosity. But I can see why it appeals to you.
> >I received a private response from Mr. Farber which contained such
> >expressions as "wave hop", which seems to indicate that the correct
> >explanation is a combination of all three above. I should also add that in
> >Mr. Farber's brief messages to me he employed language in such a way as to
> >demonstrate that his linguistic skills are about on the level of a truant
> >ten year-old, which probably explains his penchant for slang and in-group
> >patter.
>
> Not having seen that message, I would wager that you and he were speaking
> different languages, as it were.
Undoubtedly. I was using English.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
