[conspire] Breezy Badger /Netzero

[Daniel Gimpelevich]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:02:21 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
> 
>> If there is no meaningful difference between Conclusion A and Conclusion
>> B, one is hardly obligated to guess which of the two conclusions to draw.
> 
> Yes, but one had to guess, to arrive at _either_ of those conclusions.
> For all we knew, "The kppp recognizes the modem fine" might have meant
> to John merely that kppp didn't complain, or heavens knows what else.

If it did mean that, would there be a different conclusion you would draw?

> Call me a cynic, but I've seen people use the terms "worked" and
> "recognized" to mean a lot of odd things -- and likewise "crashed", etc.

Unless he would define "worked" as "succeeded in crashing," I wouldn't
expect it to skew the situation any.

> Deirdre accuses me of having a brain that's a ridiculously over-strict
> parser, always throwing up exceptions over even arguably vague syntax.  ;->

The necessity of training oneself to be such an over-strict parser is an
occupational hazard. Those of us who are such over-strict parsers without
any special training welcome you.