[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

What a completely useless response.  You completely missed the point of
my post.

David Starner <starner@okstate.edu> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Alright, then consider this.  Since a word list in a dictionary has a
>> questionable copyright, it must be removed from a dictionary.  Then,
>> people notice some common words no longer exist in the dictionary, so
>> they add them.  Eventually, every missing word will be added back to the
>> dictionary, so that the end result is identical to the original.
> That’s quite an assumption; I seriously doubt it. Assuming that the
> words removed were not in any of the other word lists used, then they
> weren’t all that common. And assuming that words flow in at a steady
> rate, a large number of new words will get added that weren’t in the
> original, many of the words in the original won’t get suggested at all,
> and I would expect that some of the words in the old word‐lists might
> get suggested but turned down as unsuitable.

It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible.  I didn't
suggest it would happen in this particular case.  What if the offending
word list contained only the words "the, if, and".  Of course those
words would be immediately replaced.

>> Have you ever heard of two original novels independently written that
>> were identical to each other?  No, that's inconceivable.
> Identical, no. But many hackneyed or strongly genre‐bound novels do turn
> out increadibly similar to each other. 

Word-for-word identical?  Are you on fucking crack?

>> But it's
>> completely conceivable for two independently compiled dictionaries to be
>> identical, or very nearly so.
> I wouldn’t describe it as likely. The choice of words (do you add cwm?
> bakress? ye? luculent? cromulent? boxen? virii? f**k? The spelling
> without the astericks? I can see large debates on each of those words)
> and the large selection mean that any two wordlists are probably going
> to have significant differences in the set of words included.

Don't waste time with retarded suggestions that have absolutely nothing
to do with the issue at hand.

People said I was dumb, but I proved them!

Reply to: