Bug#210879: Reopen: revise odd language in 'constitution.txt' -- "K Developers" ... "not integers"
reopen 210879 !
thanks
This bug is like this picture (uneeda a single spaced font):
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
********** **********
****************** ******************
******************** ********************
********************* *********************
********************* *********************
********************* **********************
********************** **********************
************************ ************************
************************* *************************
************************ ************************
************************ ************************
*********************** ***********************
************************ ************************
********************* **********************
*************** ***************
************* **************
******************************************************
A dialogue.
Disagreer: Hey, it's a vase and two faces.
Commentator #1: I only see a vase.
Commentator #2: Looks like a vase to me!
Commentator #3: A vase obviously.
Disagreer: Depends how you look at it.
Commentator #1: No it doesn't, you should only look at it one way.
Commentator #2: Communication would be impossible otherwise.
Commentator #3: Waste of time. 'A' is 'A'. No 'A' is 'not-A'.
Disagreer: Wow.
Commentator #1: I'm busy, bye. [leaves]
Commentator #2: Tsk, there's no call for sarcasm Disagreer.
Commentator #3: Yeah. #1 is productive.
Disagreer: Just look at the outline, you'll see it.
Commentator #2: That's wrong, it's the creator's intent of the central shape
that matters.
Commentator #3: Exactly. I'll call him. [phones Creator]. Hey is it a vase?
Right. That's what we said. Right. OK. You too. Cheers!
[hangs up] Definitely a vase, case closed.
Commentator #2: Proven! Bye. [leaves]
Disagreer: Ambiguity isn't strange. There's a lit crit term, "intentional
fallacy" that fits the occasion, it means something like
"incorrectly assuming a text is only what its author intended it to
be". Or consider an information theory model like:
"source>
transmitter>
signal>
(noise source)>
received signal>
receiver>
destination";
in this case the "transmitter" and "receiver" tend to add stuff the
source could not foresee.
It's not always a bad thing. Some errors and miscommunications are
good, or are even improvements on the original. I like "Plan 9 From
Outer Space", Rhino's "Golden Throats" collections, Pedro Carolino's
"the New Guide of the Conversation in Portuguese and English"...
Dialogue 31
The Books and of the Reading
What read you there?
A romance wrote very well, translated of the english, entitled the
independent.
Now one is overflowed of these sorts of stitchings.
Do you like the reading good deal too many which seem me?
That is to me a amusement.
...etc...
Commentator #3: Irrelevant and wrong. I'm a "receiver", I see the vase,
that's all.
Commentator #4: Hello. What's all the bother about, it's only a vase.
Commentator #5: Yeah, speaking for myself, all of us agree with #4.
Disagreer: Perhaps not every receiver is as sensitive?
Commentator #4: Maybe too sensitive! Ha, ha!
Commentator #5: I've got a headache. [leaves]
Commentator #3: We're sensitive enough.
Disagreer: Take color blindness or tone deafness for example, people can't
help it, it's not necessarily a sin or anything. A mechanic hears
a knock in his car and knows what it means, somebody else ignores
it.
Commentator #4: I've no time for this.
Commentator #3: We're just too busy, come back if and when you've something
interesting to say.
Disagreer: Um, what did you get for Christmas?
Reply to: