On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 16:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Genius coders often don't see why something matters to an end user.
> > They get stuck in arguing the semantics.
>
> It is impossible to communicate effectively without using well defined
> terms...
>
> Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'semantics'.
>
> > A trawl through google asking how to disable Postscatter
>
> You keep using this undefined term... ass-u-me-ing that others know what
> you are talking about.
>
> Semantics matters.
Then apply them to *EVERY RULE WITHOUT EXCEPTION WORD FOR WORD*
>
> > will give you some idea of the quality of the answers (which are
> > mostly just short of abuse). That is not helpful.
>
> What kind of response would you expect from a firearms dealer if you
> wrte to their support mail list asking how to disable the safety and
> convert the weapon to full-auto?
Let me see. what I am asking for *IS* a safety catch. I'm asking for the
MTA *NOT* to generate Postscatter if an error is made. I'm sure any arms
dealer would be happy to fit a weapon with a safety catch to stop me
killing someone if I happen to be adjusting the gun and not trying to
fire it when it accidentally goes off.
