Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re^27: What is "aggressive" argument?

by Anonymous Monk
on Nov 14, 2010 at 01:23 UTC ( #871265=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^26: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.
Circumstances and conditions vary, in the same way which affects safe driving speeds.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^28: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 14, 2010 at 04:31 UTC
    what a stupid thing to say since safe driving speeds obey a logical set rules, and are not subject to flights of fancy
      And yet the point of that comparison was to make clear that the use of phrases like "flights of fancy" is circumlocution to ascribe either personally-malicious or maliciously-apathetic whim to judgements that depend entirely on the situation ("this has gone on too long") or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.
        speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions.
        When the conditions are inclement to driving at certain speeds under the limit (fog, torrential rain, flooding, ice on the road, twenty tonnes of spilled fudge topping, mass migration of camels), the traffic constabulary has the legal authority to infract you for "reckless driving".

        Posted limits offer guidance in best conditions, not instruction under any condition. Conditions can and do demand that the vehicle operator use their faculties to determine a safe-for-driving pattern of behavior; the body of laws which include, but is not limited to, speed limits does the same.

        This exchange began with the phrase "safe driving speeds". I do not appreciate the substitution of a reference to a body of laws, which must deal with changing situations, with a proper subset, which only applies to certain situations, in order to contradict the analogy which this exchange also epitomises.

        The M25 not withstanding, speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions. If you drive at 70 miles per hour in driving rain, black ice, snow or fog, you cannot be prosecuted for "speeding". Undue care, or dangerous driving are possibilities, but not speeding. There is no analogy there.

        or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.

        Turn that around. I am being told to stop pursuing discussion that I find interesting, relevant or important because one (or some small number) of others don't share my opinion. One persons opinion is to be overidden in favour on one (or a few) other opinion. (And even those few cannot find agreement.)

        By that "standard", about (guess) 30% of the threads here should never go beyond 2 levels deep, because I'm not interested in CGI. And that would be a nonsense. Despite that not so many years ago, in some other Perl forums, "conventional wisdom" had it that questions and discussion relating to CGI were "not interesting" to serious Perlers, and so were fair game to ridicule and censure.

        Take this right back to the top of the thread and we're right back to the same question. What is "aggressive argument"? But more importantly, who gets to decide.

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://871265]
[tobyink]: *in your grep block
[tobyink]: You can use grep { $_ =~ /.*$in.*/; } @my_modules but why not stick to grep(/.*$in.*/, @my_modules)? (The latter is faster.)
[shmem]: Lady_Aleena, in the first example grep evaluates the result from grep and if true, returns $_. In the second, it always returns $_
[shmem]: ..the result from the pattern match
[Lady_Aleena]: tobyink, I did after I failed to get the BLOCK to work. I can't seem to get my brain around grep BLOCK, though I'm okay with grep EXPR.
[shmem]: so in the second example grep returns all true elements of the list passed
[Lady_Aleena]: Okay, so grep BLOCK is not like map BLOCK where something might need to be returned at the end.
[tobyink]: grep { $_ =~ /.*$in.*/; } @my_modules should work just fine. The problem is that you were adding on ;$_ at the end of the block. Why were you doing that?
[Lady_Aleena]: tobyink, I was thinking map.
[tobyink]: Something does need to be returned at the end not $_ though. You need to return (something that will be evaluated as) a boolean.

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (7)
As of 2017-05-27 07:42 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?