The Right Approach to Exceptions

[Don Clugston]

On 24/02/12 13:47, Regan Heath wrote:
> 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

Socratic irony?