On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM, ken
<gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
Jeremiah, there's no need to CC emacs-delete-poll.
On 10/04/2011 04:19 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
Dismissing logic, are we? I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here
approaching zero.
No, I was not dismissing logic. I was clarifying that the intended
meaning of the work "assumption" in my post was not the same meaning
as the word has when discussing formal logic.
Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out) were based on logic.
"Formal logic", as you call it, is just regular logic made more rigorous.
I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was saying.
And it was *all* that I was saying. I said this because, in fact, two
people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-read
my original post and you'll see I already said this.
What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.
"there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?! So you're saying that even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that they had one.
Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
reason other than being fashionable.
Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn't give another reason.
....
Not at all. You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle of
UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.
.... that
principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
the behavior does for some.
No it doesn't apply. When you start to use new software, you should expect to have to learn it. It's not a surprise if you don't yet know how to use it. Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to learn something?
The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
*not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
*against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
wearing them!".
Again, re-read my original post. Don't try to put words or arguments in it
that aren't there. I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even
imply that. So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements coming
out of your imagination.
But you did state that the arguments for changing the behavior were
stated as being only because other editors had the behavior. You're
correct that they were *stated* that way, however that doesn't mean
that that's as far as the motivation for the change being something
worth considering goes, and it's not the spot to argue against making
the change from.
I've already said what I said, explained what I said, corrected you when you imagined I said things I didn't actually say, and several times referred you back to what I did say. You and I aren't married. I've got a life outside this thread. And I'm sure there are other people around you can argue with. Wish them good luck and blessings from me.