3 ms·
Looks like all three of us are being a bit condescending here. Here is the actual logic: if people are not inherently bad at teaching, that means they are most
by hellofunk 9y ago
Looks like all three of us are being a bit condescending here.
Here is the actual logic: if people are not inherently bad at teaching, that means they are mostly effective at it, right? Were most of the teachers you've had in your life effective at teaching? Mine certainly were not.
Perhaps you were having problems with the use of my word "nothing" instead of "mostly," which is just a colloquialism. Idioms of language rarely respond to logic in the way numbers do.
- marktangotango 9y agoIt's clear you are arguing for the sake of arguing and this community is worse for it.
- WalterBright 9y agoYou changed your wording from "highly effective" to "mostly effective". It's a crucial change, and so I infer you accepted my point :-)
- hellofunk 9y agoNo I didn't? It still says "highly."
- WalterBright 9y agoLook at your post I just replied to. It does not say "highly".
- hellofunk 9y agoI thought you meant I edited my original post that spawned your objections, which I haven't. I'll admit to being surprised at such a reaction over the choice of either of these words over the other. My meaning was clear in either case.
- jasonwelk 9y agoDon't be too surprised. Hackers tend to treat natural language like a programming language, unfortunately. Challenge them on it, and get ridiculed. Your point has been lost in all the nonsense, but I agree with it.
- marktangotango 9y agoNot just you're (derogatively named?) hackers but anyone who uses natural language for precise meaning; lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers. People who say what they mean, and mean what they say.