|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 06/04/07 06:44
Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> Scripsit Bernhard Sturm:
>>
>>> If that is the case then could you please ask for the
>>> deletion of this Wikipedia entry:
>>
>> Why? I have no interest in raising the level of toilet wall
>> engravings just to see some other people paint their crap over them.
>> Anyone who wants to know the facts can consult reliable sources.
>
> Jukka, I think this is quite an arrogant statement you made.
Don't be ridiculous. I don't clean up the shit that other people put around
the Web, and there's nothing arrogant in saying that when the shit has been
cited in public discussion and I was asked to clean it up.
> I always admired your knowledge and profound know-how, but sometimes
> you just seem not to be able to accept other facts or point-of-views.
There's no "other facts" in this issue, or in the em issue. You can have any
point of view you like, but it does not change the facts.
>- - I think it's just
> not good enough, if you keep on going criticizing others of not
> providing 'good' sources to support their statements, but on the
> other hand you fail to provide those 'reliable sources' in order to
> proof your points.
If you want to argue about the meaning of the em unit, or the ASCII code,
then you are supposed to check your facts from reliable sources, on your
own. I've already told you to find a book on typography for the first issue
and the ASCII standard for the latter.
> In most cases you just come up with 'I have done
> that, and I do know it is that way, do you?'.
In matters where it would be pointless to cite references, since the other
side hasn't apparently checked any reliable references. If someone is
willing to argue in public without checking any facts (and reading random
web pages does not count as checking facts), why would he actually check
anything even if I gave an ISBN or ANS number?
> Forgive me, but IMHO this is patronising others for their strive of a
> (halfway) fair discussion.
This "fair discussion" (about the em unit, and then ASCII) is comparable to
discussing whether 2+2 equals 4 or 7, with some people citing novels that
say 2 + 2 = 7. (Yes, there is an enjoyable novel saying that.)
> Although this is not necessary - I believe
> it is just good netiquette - but I have never seen you apologising
> for a statement you (falsly) made.
Your sentence does not really parse. And I don't really care what you are
trying to say with it. You are just babbling pointlessly, since the factual
issues - em and ASCII (which I raised for comparison, as an example of
matters that people have misconceptions about, and you surely proved that) -
are easily resolved as soon as you check facts, and you are just attacking
me for saying this. If there's anyone who should apologize, it's you.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|