Re: Context, pedantry and appropriate response.

[Anonymous Monk]

<Pedantic mode>

We have a mass of a certain number of Newtons that only becomes a weight in the presence of a particular value of gravity.

Not quite. A mass is usually measured in kilograms (but you could admittedly use grams, tons or pounds if so you wish), but emphatically not in newtons. Newtons are used for measuring forces, including weight, but certainly not for measuring masses.

So if an individual has a mass of, say, 70 kg, he or she would weigh about 686.5 newtons on the Earth at sea level, i.e. the 70-kg mass of that person would be attracted toward the center of the Earth with a force of 686.5 newtons. On the moon's surface, that person would still have a mass 70 kg, but would weigh only about 113.4 newtons.

</Pedantic mode>

[BrowserUk]

++ for making my point :)

[Myrddin Wyllt]

<meta-pedantic mode>

We have a mass of a certain number of Newtons that...

While the symbol for the SI unit of force is an upper case 'N' (U+004E), it's name is rendered using a lower case 'n' (U+006E), so that should have been 'newtons'. This is a general principle for SI units named after people.

</meta-pedantic mode>

[BrowserUk]

And once more my point is made. I'm not a physicist.

I know of these things, but not the detail. I know that newtons are named after a man named Newton; and I know that conventionally, we (people in general) capitalise the first letter of names; its habitual.

I was not aware that physicists had arrive at some contrary convention for when a person's name is used for a unit of measure in this way. Woe is me!

But the point I was making in my post is not in anyway affected by my lack of knowledge in that specialised sphere; indeed, it reinforces the point exactly.

To quote Richard Feynman: "We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other "You don't know what you are talking about!" The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?," and so on. In order to be able to talk constructively, we have to be able to agree that we are talking about roughly the same thing.

Note the word "constructive". Inquiring of Your Mother whether he was attributing a typo that I could find no evidence for making, and have no recollection of correcting, is a constructive attempt to move a conversation forward. Ditto, asking why an OP feels the need to quote the word process.

Contrast with:

• the still unexplained assertion that the phrase 'Unicode string' is some how "invalid" despite is frequent use by those that invented and control Unicode;
• making sport of minor typos;
• making play of minor discrepancies in notation as adopted by a small and highly specialised minority of society to which the annotator is not a member.

And that point that you've so neatly and concisely reinforced is simply this: If you know what the guy meant, take it as read and move on; if you do not understand what the guy is trying to say; then ask for clarification; not assert your (mis)understanding of his meaning.