Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>> >
>> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>> 
>> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
>> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
>> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
>
> It makes no sense at all, therefore it is both incomprehensible and
> gibberish (they're roughly synonyms).
>
>   incomprehensible
>        2: difficult to understand
>
>   gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
>      2. Incomprehensible, [or ...]
>
> Grow up, and find something less crazy to do than picking on people
> bigger than you.

Those are strong words from someone who admits he cannot parse a
simple sentence and supports his assertion with what can only be
_intentionally misleading_ selective quoting.  The rest of that
definition of gibberish makes it clear you are full of it:

     1. Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language;
        unmeaning words.
        [1913 Webster]

     2. Incomprehensible, obscure, or pretentious technical talk
        or writing; excessively obscure jargon.
        [PJC]

Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the
meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it
apply at all.

The other definitions for incomprehensible are similarly distinct from
the narrow meaning that you attempted to apply.

Michael Poole