4 ms·

I get the feeling it was originally printed like that. The issue was an APL special - this link has download links for every article from it - IBM Systems Jour

I get the feeling it was originally printed like that. The issue was an APL special - this link has download links for every article from it - IBM Systems Journal volume 30, issue 4 1991. Includes Iverson's A personal view of APL. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/?journal=8991&year=1991&volume=30&issue=4 http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/?journal=8991&year=1991&volume=...

teddyh 7y ago
> I get the feeling it was originally printed like that. No, look at, for instance, page 3 of the PDF (page 557 of the scanned document). You can see faint traces of what was supposed to be there.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  I looked at it before writing what I wrote. You omitted your reasoning in between "Look at it" and "No"–as it stands, neither are polite. It's no better than a bare "No, you're wrong". (Evidently I went from looking at it to "yes").
  - teddyh 7y ago
    > "Look at it" I did not write that. I wrote “look at, for instance, page 3”. By that I meant that the pictures on the first two pages might appear totally blank and might therefore be meant to be blank, but specifically page 3 (and others), shows that there are meant to be other things in the pictures. And there you have my reasoning. And, as it turns out, I was right, and there really were other things in the pictures, and none of them were meant to be blank. You’re just tone policing.
    - yesenadam 7y ago
      Again you just repeat what I knew already, more offensively this time, without, it seems, explaining your reasoning in the slightest. The question was, I thought, whether the pictures were originally not printed properly or just not scanned properly. I said "I get the feeling" because I don't think it's easy or possible to definitively tell the difference in this case. You've expanded on what you said before without adding anything, explaining the obvious again, but it doesn't explain to me at all how looking at the pictures help you decided one way or the other. Presumably no-one thought the blank pictures were supposed to be blank, but what caused that, I don't know. I just had a vague feeling. "Tone policing" is, I thought, not responding to someone's content but objecting to the style of delivery e.g. if they're upset. I was both objecting to your style, which felt rude, and addressing the content, saying the argument justifying it was absent, that there was no content except "No". And you have since provided no more argument, but more rudeness.

teddyh 7y ago

> I get the feeling it was originally printed like that. No, look at, for instance, page 3 of the PDF (page 557 of the scanned document). You can see faint traces of what was supposed to be there.

yesenadam 7y ago
I looked at it before writing what I wrote. You omitted your reasoning in between "Look at it" and "No"–as it stands, neither are polite. It's no better than a bare "No, you're wrong". (Evidently I went from looking at it to "yes").
- teddyh 7y ago
  > "Look at it" I did not write that. I wrote “look at, for instance, page 3”. By that I meant that the pictures on the first two pages might appear totally blank and might therefore be meant to be blank, but specifically page 3 (and others), shows that there are meant to be other things in the pictures. And there you have my reasoning. And, as it turns out, I was right, and there really were other things in the pictures, and none of them were meant to be blank. You’re just tone policing.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    Again you just repeat what I knew already, more offensively this time, without, it seems, explaining your reasoning in the slightest. The question was, I thought, whether the pictures were originally not printed properly or just not scanned properly. I said "I get the feeling" because I don't think it's easy or possible to definitively tell the difference in this case. You've expanded on what you said before without adding anything, explaining the obvious again, but it doesn't explain to me at all how looking at the pictures help you decided one way or the other. Presumably no-one thought the blank pictures were supposed to be blank, but what caused that, I don't know. I just had a vague feeling. "Tone policing" is, I thought, not responding to someone's content but objecting to the style of delivery e.g. if they're upset. I was both objecting to your style, which felt rude, and addressing the content, saying the argument justifying it was absent, that there was no content except "No". And you have since provided no more argument, but more rudeness.