[Gllug] bash-tips, learning styles and lofty pursuits

general_email at technicalbloke.com general_email at technicalbloke.com
Tue Apr 20 23:24:02 UTC 2010


Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:45:50PM +0100, general_email wrote:
>   
>> If one wanted to be REALLY pedantic pedantry DOES enable one to insist
>> anything one likes irrespective of it's actual correctness ;)
>>     
>
> That depends on which definition of pedant you choose.  I think both NIX
> and DD were using the term in the "rules lawyer" sense, in which case
> you are wrong; that kind of pedant can only insist on things that are
> defined in an existing ruleset.  Humans being what they are, there's
> certainly a very large pool of available rulesets, but it's not
> infinite.
>
> Pedantic enough for you?
>
>   
Well as there's nothing preventing rulesets from being mutally
inconsistent or even self contradictory then I would take issue with
your assertion that there is any constraint on their number. Surely even
if we assume there is a fundamentally correct ruleset for a given name
or object (as opposed to a just-firm-enough-to-be-useful level of
agreement) it doesn't follow that either party has that as their
ruleset, this doesn't preclude them from pedantry. Also as the parties
may disagree what rules should make up the ruleset then either may act
pedantically from their own perspective regardless of any underlying
absolute truth.

Your case is only true if both parties fully agree on the ruleset and it
is self consistent. I'm not sure that is the case. Besides it's quite
clear... Mac IS a UNIX, Linux is not - Both the Open Group AND Wikipedia
say so! ;)

Roger.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list