The Right Approach to Exceptions

[Regan Heath]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:13:17 -0000, James Miller <james at aatch.net> wrote:
> On 23 February 2012 05:09, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:19:17 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/12 5:55 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:04:59 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/12 4:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, how is this not *already* crystal-clear? I feel as if
>>>>>> every few
>>>>>> weeks you're just coming up with deliberately random shit to argue  
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> rest of us have to waste our time spelling out the obvious in  
>>>>>> insanely
>>>>>> pedantic detail.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It sometimes happened to me to be reach the hypothesis that my
>>>>> interlocutor must be some idiot. Most often I was missing something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I get the impression that you find "Devil's advocate" a useful tool  
>>>> for
>>>> generating debate and out of the box thinking.. there is something to  
>>>> be
>>>> said for that, but it's probably less annoying to some if you're clear
>>>> about that from the beginning. :p
>>>
>>>
>>> Where did it seem I was playing devil's advocate? Thanks.
>>
>>
>> "Devil's Advocate" is perhaps not the right term, as you don't seem to  
>> ever
>> argue the opposite to what you believe.  But, it occasionally seems to  
>> me
>> that you imply ignorance on your part, in order to draw more information
>> from other posters on exactly what they think or are proposing.  So,  
>> some
>> get frustrated as they feel they have to explain "everything" to you  
>> (and
>> not just you, there have been times where - for whatever reason - it  
>> seems
>> that anything less than a description of every single minute detail  
>> results
>> in a miss understanding - no doubt partly due to the medium in which we  
>> are
>> communicating).
>>
>>
>> Regan
>>
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> I think that is technically called being facetious.

Doesn't seem quite right to me:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/