"insane". Conformity has always been that which *Linus's security blanket symbolized so perfectly. Asylums (-ii?) have always been society's way of flushing down the toilet that which they neither comprehend nor wish to try. (All done with Official polysyllabic word-Labels, natch - and by Folks who Profess.. To Know cha cha cha - Wanna buy a PhD?)

* Nahh - the Other one.

I couldn't remotely speak to your coding insights/fantasies brilliance/delusion of course. Ain't got no cuth in that. But tenacity I give ya - just have to bear in mind that.. every fanatic and bigot also claims this er virtue ;-)


Hang in there, but methinks you need some hard-core streamlining of your basic tenets. I can understand many of the comments about the er 'assumptions' within the methods behind the Rulez, of some common digital languages - well enough to grok as much as I care to. Shallow is good enough for me on those topics. A matter of Interest? or merely 'interest' here.

But you can't make merely High-scale claims of "merchantability and fitness to purpose" - and expect these to compel. Being smart is never enough. The real Art of all excrescences is ever and always: Communicating insight within a form even the dullard [like me] can also somewhat 'see'. Y'know?

Your disdain for (the Reasons Why it's important) learning convincing English syntax + properly-spelled umm nuanced helper-words - all those things which place an idea in some perspective for others: does not bode well for your achieving the communication you'd like to. You are being silly, merely - when you ignore this argument which various have made pretty well. Repeatedly. Some would call this a blind spot in your mentation.

Technobabble comes Much later, and is essential for that chimerical 'proof' / example stuff. But it can't precede it!
(If you take these remarks as a dis? You Missed It.)



Cheers,

Ashton
who hopes never to become labelled fully, certifiably socially-sane. thankyouverymuch

PS:

Look up some of the How-tos re 'outlining'. Ex:

A) This is the area I'm going to talk about.
B) This is the specific part of that area I will address.
C) This is a summary of 'current practice' there.
D) Here's what I propose.
E) This is what I have compared and said about both approaches.
F) What have I missed?
. . .
G) Nothing? - then - inform the Nobel Committee.
H) Bask.
I) Only much later: gloat.