Hello chacham,

Re: Your consideration of jdporter’s reply as “abusive”: I don’t think it was intended as such. It’s a paraphrase of an (in)famous quotation from Mark Jason Dominus.

And the point (as I understand it) is valid, because legalese, like Perl or any other language, has its own technical vocabulary and conventions, and so is often opaque to those of us not fluent in its use.

<anecdote>
When my mother sold her house, we took the contract to a solicitor who specialises in this area of the law. He read through the contract and removed a couple of clauses which, he said, were not in our interest. The point being that we found out what those clauses actually meant only when he explained them. On our own, we would have had to leave them in precisely because we had no idea of what they actually entailed.
</anecdote>

So the point is this: when you “edited liberally” the contract to which you refer, you were in danger of (a) using terminology which didn’t mean what you thought it did, and (b) missing gotchas in the contract which you didn’t recognise because they were buried under a weight of legalese. (This is assuming you are not yourself a trained lawyer, of course.)

Which is, I think, all that jdporter intended to convey.

My edits were redactions of sections saying what i could not do for 6 or 12 months afterward. I'm relatively sure there was no other intention.

I went back and forth on considering the reply. At first i thought someone else would consider it, and was surprised when it wasn't. Considering a post when i am the recipient seems tacky. Ultimately, after realizing he has an unpleasant attitude (for example, the enlargement of "fail") i figured he either has it in for me or just a jerk to everybody. I considered it to let the people decide, even though he is a well-known person here and the chances of his post being removed was small.

I do appreciate your explanation. However, as it needed to be explained, it wasn't quoted, and includes an expletive and epithet, i still think it is not an appropriate post.

You could have simply asked me to clarify. I would gladly do it. In fact, I've gone done it. :-)

No, I'm not out to get you. I am somewhat of a jerk, sometimes, though not intentionally. I'm sorry.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

You can't just make shit up and expect lawyers to know what you mean, retardo.

Update: For those who don't get my allusion: it is to a famous quotation by mjd himself; here is the origin.

Are mentally disabled people worthy of derision, as the quote seems to imply?

Are mentally disabled people worthy of derision, as the quote seems to imply?

Question: Do you seriously believe that either person was actually deriding mentally handicapped persons?

Is it possible that they were perhaps suggesting that on occasions, persons who are usually judged to be of 'normal' mental capacities; make questionable decisions and assertions that might, in isolation, cause them to be accessed far below their 'normal' faculties, such that they would, in isolation, rate them statistically as 'below normal'?

If so. That is, if there is even a possibility that they are not attempting to deride those whom society/statistics judge to be of 'below normal mental acuity'; but rather poking fun at those of often above normal abilities, that for some reason -- technical blind spots; oversensitive defensiveness; academic indoctrination; or simply lackadaisical research, effort or thought -- occasionally or habitually make, and worse, defend, demonstrably incorrect technical judgements, assertions and assumptions; then aren't you making the lot of mentally disabled people worse, by making an issue of this?

That is, by making a big issue of small, and highly questionable infractions of social awareness issues, you make it harder for the real issues to be discussed and addressed; because you make people afraid to even mention them for fear of falling foul of the self-appointed, oversensitive gatekeepers of political correctness.

Please note: there are three questions there. No judgements; no assertions; no condemnations.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

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". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked