Would You Bet $100,000,000 on D?

[Xavier]

Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/18/2011 05:41 AM, Xavier wrote:
>> Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2011 10:57 AM, Josh Simmons wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Nick Sabalausky<a at a.a>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously trying say that that implies each successive one
>>>>> is inherently no better than the previous? If so, then that's just
>>>>> patently absurd. If not, then what in the world *is* your point?
>>>>> Just to troll?
>>>>
>>>> No I believe the implication is that absolute quality is so
>>>> absurdly impossible to define that it's somewhat irrelevant to even
>>>> contemplate it. And it's certainly overly simplistic to consider it
>>>> without putting it in the context of a given problem.
>>>
>>> Well, my pragmatic and simplistic definition of language quality is
>>
>> Oh curb it already.
>>
>>
>
> The only difference between that definition and most of the contents
> of your posts in this thread is that it actually introduces itself as
> being maybe too simplistic and therefore possibly not appropriate for
> a given situation. That is a strength, not a weakness. Please think
> before you post.

Why don't you consider doing that?