Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451740 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740 (tinman)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:06:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> >Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
> >manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
> >without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
> >console, even when this game can run only on this system.
>
> That's because they published their API. You're not using their
> intellectual property. You're benefiting from it, certainly. But
> you're not using it. Besides, your example isn't even very valid; yes,
> game console companies can and do have licenses agreed to by developers.
>
> It is simply an inappropriate comparison, Hyman, that doesn't have any
> relevance to libraries on a general purpose system.
I don't think you understand. Game console companies most certainly have
license agreements; those agreements require royalties for every copy of
a game that is sold. Very often the APIs are released only under NDAs.
What some companies (Galoob, maybe?) do is to hack a console apart and
reverse engineer the APIs, then write games to what they have discovered
about the machine, precisely to avoid entering into agreements with the
manufacturer, so as not to have to pay royalties. And *that* is what the
courts have ruled is legal.
Along the same lines, PC makers used to implant copyright strings into
their ROMS, then have the startup code of the OS look for the string and
fail to work if it couldn't find it. That stratagem failed; the courts
did not prevent clone makers from embedding the same string, because
that
was the only way to get the clone to work.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:06:18 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 00:35:23 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I mean, every company I've worked at for the last 8 years runs NT
>without exception
I don't think NT was GA 8 years ago. IIS for sure wasn't shipping
then. Neither was Apache for that matter.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:11:14 GMT
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> I've never claimed profit needs to be there. There *does* need to be
> enough to reward those who work very hard at software development.
> Software developers are needed far more than twits like you -- without
> us, you don't get the software to get your job done. Open source, or
> not.
By far and away, most software developers are paid by the companies they
work for to produce programs needed to run the business, not to be sold.
Since, as you correctly point out, we are a long way from tinker-toy
software
construction, programmers are going to have full employment regardless
of
whether GPL use is widespread or not.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:23:56 GMT
Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <8kgahp$sea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright
> >case, it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
>
> Only true if you like lawsuits.
You may recall not so long ago the NAACP and a bunch of other civil
rights groups settled a discrimination suit brought by a white teacher
who claimed she was denied a promotion strictly because of her race.
(That fact wasn't actually in dispute; the question was whether that
was justified by affirmative action.) The reason it was settled was
becuase the rights groups were terrified that the case would be heard
by the Supreme Court, with a disastrous outcome for their position
setting a precedent.
The FSF would be terribly foolish to try to enforce a RIPEM policy in
court. They would surely lose, and do great damage to the GPL. If the
FSF ever decides to sue over the GPL, it will be over a blatant
violation,
not a subtle one.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:26:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Jay Maynard from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 19:37:33
[...]
>Sorry, but you do not increase freedom by rstricting it. Period.
You are mistaken. Comma. You increase freedom for all by restricting
it under certain conditions for one. If you treat freedom as an ideal,
this is self-evident and undeniable. If you treat freedom as a floating
abstraction, you don't realize that your pronoun 'it' at the end of the
sentence doesn't agree with your subject 'freedom'.
A proper reading, if one could be presented in the face of trolling, is
"you do increase freedom for all by restricting it for one." But again,
this requires an ability to deal with abstract concepts, where the 'it'
refers to a single instance of a single freedom, and the subject
'freedom' refers to all instances of all freedoms.
>Further,
>not all entities share the same level of freedom under the GPV: add-on
>developers are frozen out.
This is entirely the opposite of the case. All "entities" in receipt of
GPL software are bound under the same license; they share the same level
of freedom under the GPL. It is commercial software which discriminates
in order to maintain 'their market'; the developers have copyright
licenses, similar to but decisively different than the GPL itself. End
users, however, have trade secret licenses, and thus all 'entities'
don't share the same level of freedoms. With alternative open source
licenses, the situation can be identified as one (in which developer and
end user are indistinguishable) or separate (providing separate clauses
based on the intended purpose of distribution or transfer).
That the level of freedom permitted is not sufficient for a small number
of people who would like to capitalize on the code is unfortunate, but a
necessary approach to deter commercial software trade secret licenses,
which is the stated intent of the GPL. This will indeed inhibit the
demand for the GPL in the developer's marketplace. But it has nothing
whatsoever to do with the end user's marketplace, other than the fact
that it doesn't allow one. ;-) If there aren't sufficient end users
who benefit from GPL licensing, then the developers have nothing to
fear.
Be afraid.
>> You lie when you claim that Free Software is actually incompatible
>> with the construction of software where the author can use any
>> licence he pleases, keep the software secret and even make obscene
>> profits on it.
>
>Counterexample: BSD. The BSD license is, according to most folks, free, yet
>the BSD developers (some of whom you're calling liars in this very thread)
>cannot incorporate GPVed software in BSD and remain true to the goals of
>their project: a truly free, reusable system with none of the GPV's
>drawbacks.
The abstract "competition" between the BSD and GPL licenses is just
that. There is no restriction on incorporating GPL software into BSD.
There is also no reason to do so, as you point out, because you can't
restrict it further in order to profiteer on that restriction should you
manage to place it. But since there is no requirement that you
incorporate GPL code, the only reason a developer would have for doing
so is if they can't come up with better code themselves. And if they
can't do that, it is not the market's or the customer's problem.
Because not getting code from someone who isn't able to develop code is
not a loss to the consumer, even if they're currently paying for a lot
of that now.
>Now, are you going to quit calling people liars when they're not?
He was reacting to your calling people liars. As in you said he was a
liar, he explained why you would say so, refuted your justification, and
said, in closing "if anyone is a liar, you are". The fact that you can
repeat your earlier insufficient justifications for trying to deny RSM's
honesty in calling GPL software "free", does not mean you have
contradicted that charge, if anyone might seriously think he made one.
You're trolling. Keep it up, and I'll call you a scumbag, as well as a
troll and a liar.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:28:24 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Tinman wrote:
> > >
> > > 1> That's tinman. ('
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who is also Tinman.
> >
> > Nope, that's not me.
>
> Incorrect. Witness the fact that you responded as if it were you when I
> addressed you as Tinman.
Incorrect. I posted the message that you followed up on.
> > > 1> And why else would I post?
> > >
> > > I prefer not to presume.
> >
> > Then why do you presume?
>
> You are presupposing that I presume. How ironic.
So you presume.
>
> > > 1> On the contrary.
> > >
> > > Having trouble completing a sentence Tinman?
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> See what I mean?
What you mean is irrelevent.
>
> > > 1> My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. Witness the fact that you have been digestified.
> >
> > Not yet.
>
> Liar. I see you failed to examine the evidence again.
On the contrary. I reside within the evidence showing that I've not yet
been digestified.
> > ("
>
> Taking made-up word lessons from Joe Malloy?
What alleged "Joe Malloy"?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:37:48 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Now, the reason this idea horrifies you software engineers, I believe,
> is because you can't for the life of you believe that one bad app won't
> screw the hole thing up. Which is exactly why this is of value to the
> operator/user/consumer. One bad app *can* screw it up. Which is why
> cooperation is required of the vendors, as well as the code.
And what if they don't cooperate?
> Leaving
> this "gaping hole" that scares you guys so much is actually a mandate
> that *nobody* right bad software which hogs the CPU unnecessarily.
And what if someone does write such software?
> In a
> PMT system (though the cases, of course, can't really compare), that one
> app that takes 75% when it *really* only needs 2%, is still going to get
> its 75%, even when it *isn't* the focus of the user's attention.
>
> >Worse, when the foreground app yields, which any well
> >written app does constantly, any other app can grab and hog the
> >processor for as long as it wants, totally locking out the foreground
> >app. This happens all the time.
>
> "If". The phrase is "if the foreground app yields". ;-)
But what if I don't want the focal app to have that much CPU in
the first place?
>
>
> Again, this happens all the time. It gets fixed all the time, too. The
> user, again, not theory, should decide if that is desirable.
But how does the user decide to give CPU priority to a nonfocal
app in CMT?
> One bad
> apple can spoil the bunch is a good thing. Its the only way you can be
> sure you have a good bunch, instead of just a good apple.
>
> >For example, if I'm typing in MT-Newswatcher and Internet Explorer loads
> >a complex page in the background and starts rendering it, MT-Newswatcher
> >will totally freeze up for several seconds.
>
> That happens to PC users, to.
>
> >In a well designed PMT
> >system, I wouldn't even notice when IE started rendering. Could this
> >situation be improved if IE yielded the processor during rendering?
> >Sure, but you can't count on that.
>
> I don't need to count on it. I can verify it. You're just illustrating
> why IE sucks, not why CMT sucks.
>
> >The amount of processor time an app should yield depends on what else
> >the system is doing, which is something the app can't know.
>
> The amount of processor time an app should yield depends only on what
> the *user* is doing.
No. It depends on what background processes are running
> These are not servers! They are not shared hosts!
> There is no reason whatsoever to make *my* use of the software, *my*
> process, whatever is taking up my time and attention *now*, to be
> absolutely the fastest possible thing on the computer.
>
But even in a stand alone Linux, many of the processes are not user generated
>
> >Virtually every PMT system allows priorities to be assigned to tasks.
>
> Virtually no desktop client-only users have interest in dealing with
> such intricacies, or need to.
>
Then what power does CMT give you, except for giving the focal app
the most CPU time?
<snip>
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451740
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:40:06 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he continues to lie about his
reciprocation.
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear. Seems like
he's comfortable only where he can count on others to join him.
109> Here's today's Tholen digest:
109>
109> Prove it, if you think you can, Tholen,
Already did, Malloy. Multiple times. Having more reading comprehension
problems?
109> otherwise it's merely an empty allegation,
Irrelevant, given that I already proved it, Malloy.
109> which we have come to expect of you.
Who are you speaking for when you say "we", Malloy?
109> [As for real content, hey, there wasn't any! Bye!]
110> Here's today's Tholen digest.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word "today", Malloy? You
posted two "digests" only one second apart (according to the headers,
at least: 9:14:17 and 9:14:18).
110> Note how he completely ignores my latest explanation for his
110> willful lies,
What alleged "willful lies", Malloy? I can't address something that doesn't
exist. I did, however, address your alleged reciprocation, which is, rather
ironically, a "willful lie" on your part, Malloy.
110> by pointing out how the existence or nonexistence of his alleged
110> "requirements" does nothing to change anything.
Right, namely it doesn't change the fact that you did not reciprocate,
despite your claim that you did. Of course, I already pointed that out.
110> Yet I could claim that Tholen did or did not fart in the president of
110> UofH's office and the fact that the president did not reciprocate.
You could make a fool of yourself in the process, Malloy. Of course, to
make the analogy appropriate, you'd need to provide a claim made by the
president, one that contradicts the facts. I ignored you for over a
year. You claim to have reciprocated. Yet nobody can find a greater-
than-one-year period during which you ignored me. Obviously you did
not reciprocate. Thus you lied.
110> He obviously lied about that,
How can I lie about your imaginings, Malloy? Classic illogic.
110> and he's too embarrassed to admit that he, in fact, is a liar.
Where is the alleged lie, Malloy? The liar here is you, and your lie
is your claim that you reciprocated when I ignroed you for over a year.
You did not ignore me for over a year, therefore you did not
reciprocate.
110> Well, yeah, I think I'd be reluctant to admit to his petty crimes!
Where is the alleged crime, Malloy?
110> The digest proper:
110>
110> (0)
110>
110> Bye!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:41:50 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Incorrect.
Balderdash, given your failure to comprehend the evidence
presented.
1> You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in presenting any
1> evidence.
Incorrect, given that I presented it multiple times.
1> On the contrary, my answer was quite appropriate.
Illogical, given that you didn't provide an answer, therefore one
cannot assess whether it was appropriate or not.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:42:34 GMT
Phillip Lord wrote:
> And how are you going to maintain these essential freedoms?
> The dictatorship of the market that we have at the moment does not
> give a damn many basic human rights. I would argue that democracy is
> the best way to protect these rights.
The *democracy* of the market cares very much about your personal
freedom of choice. Companies are desperately trying to show you a
little leg so that you'll take them home.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:46:32 GMT
Phillip Lord wrote:
> But this is wholly different from the property that earns
> money for the owner. Land in excess for instance of what a person
> needs for their life. The money that this produces for the owner comes
> from somewhere, and from someone's hard work. But not the
> owners.
The money it produces comes from people who are exchanging it for
something they get of equal value. The total amount of wealth
increases because new things are brought forth that did not exist
before.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:04:08 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I used to hand-assemble C-code, so I know what you mean.
>
> A simple hi-res screen-fill took about 3 seconds in machine language,
> but over a minute in Microsoft BASIC.
Translating assembler into machine code. In the early day of home
computing, I used to do that myself, until I wrote my own editor, assembler,
and monitors in assembler and hand translated it into machine code and
entered it a byte at a time into the computer. How many of the new people
entering the field would still be willing to do that the way we used to?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:09 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am not a rabid anything. Rather I was presenting the argument as a
tactic
> > that I have used to shutdown the constant singsongs of the rabid
anti-Linux
> > people like Mr. Goodwin. The argument is derived from the saying : if
you
> > choose not to vote then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
>
> Perhaps I worded wrong again. I wasn't trying to accuse you of being
> rabid, just saying that his was a common song I heard when I first
> joined the Linux crowd from those that were rabid. You seem reasonable
> anytime I've conversed with you. I just think that old "make it
> yourself" argument is pretty much useless in winning people over. I
> know it came close to discouraging me from using Linux for a while. But
> then I realized that was just a common theme and easily repeated and got
> on with it.
Understood, and Thank you.
In the beginning of Linux that was a common line because, there was so much
to be done to really get Linux to be the equal of the other unixes. Now it
can still be useful for other reasons. ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:50:21 -0400
In article <iltb5.32149$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> Incorrect.
>
> Balderdash, given your failure to comprehend the evidence
> presented.
Typical invective. And the failure is yours.
> 1> You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in presenting any
> 1> evidence.
>
> Incorrect, given that I presented it multiple times.
What alleged "evidence"?
>
> 1> On the contrary, my answer was quite appropriate.
>
> Illogical, given that you didn't provide an answer, therefore one
> cannot assess whether it was appropriate or not.
On the contrary.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:58:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>>> Excuse you *very* much, but this is not true (and I say this as someone
>>> who is, first and foremost, an expert on the language more than
>>> computing). If the metaphor is meaningless -- as Mike's attempt at
>>> metaphor was -- then it's not useful. If you're attempting to make a
>>> metaphor including slavery, then you have to deal with the same class
>>> of things as you're attempting to make a metaphor for, or you have to
>>> adjust your metaphor such that it properly deals with the alternate
>>> class.
Mr. Ziegler,
I have been researching your issue concerning metaphors, because I was
unfamiliar with your proffered sentiment that there are rules as to what
is a valid or invalid metaphor, and that these relate to whether
something is "animate" or "inanimate". I am not a linguist or
grammarian, so I was not familiar with the concept, and you may recall I
denied such a thing existed indirectly, by asking you to explain where
it came from. It seemed that counter examples might be possible in
various similes, but I wasn't sure if there were some rule about
metaphors. Neither of the dictionary definitions either of us posted
mentioned it, nor anything about the possibility of a metaphor being
unilaterally declared unacceptable due to some *per se* rule. The
listener would be free to accept or reject a metaphor as useful or
valid, of course, but that is obviously a subjective consideration, not
to be denied, though certainly possibly questioned, by others.
In doing this research, as I have in the past, I consulted my local
lingual "expert", an high school English teacher I know. I asked her
"what is a 'mixed metaphor'?" She didn't immediately recognize the
phrase as a term, so she consulted her reference. While she was doing
so, I explained the origin in the question of whether animates and
inanimates could be swapped in a metaphor, and if this wasn't a mixed
metaphor. She stopped, with that look on her face that means what you
just said was still being processed, and confessed that she vaguely
remembered something along those lines, and the continued looking it up.
She was using the 6th edition of A Handbook To Literature, by Homan and
Harmon, published by Macmillan in 1992. I was surprised to see that it
immediately stated that metaphor was an analogy, which came as news to
me. A further reading (by looking up analogy, as well as simile)
indicated that our typical usage of "analogy" on Usenet is only a single
facet of the literary concept. So that wasn't really a cogent issue.
What I think is a cogent issue is where it described a concept which, in
other hands, may well have been presented similarly to what you remember
from your education; that metaphors between animate and inanimate are
not valid. It doesn't mention animate at all, but it does discuss a
similar dichotomy, which may be easily confused or even re-interpreted
as what you stated. It is important to remember that the entry in the
Handbook is a description, not a definition.
Here is the important part, from page 288, the last two paragraphs of
the entry on "Metaphor". I leave it to you and other posters to
re-examine this issue. I am cross-posting into alt.destroy.microsoft so
that I can keep track of it.
===========================================================...
Metaphors may be simple, that is may occur in the single isolated
comparison, or a large metaphor may function as the controlling image of
a whole work (see Edward Taylor's poem quoted in the article on
*controlling image*) or a series of vehicles may all be associated with
a single tenor, as in Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy. In this
last kind of case, however, unless the images can harmoniously build the
tenor without impressing the reader with a sense of their incongruity,
the possibility of a *mixed figure* is immanent.
According to a fairly ingenuous notion of language, abstractions can be
treated only in terms that are not abstract, presumably because the
primitive mind cannot handle abstractions. But no evidence establishes
the existence of any such limitations. To presume that any human being
has to have a grasp of physical "pulling away" (abs + trahere) before
being able to grasp an abstract "abstraction" is little more than
bigotry. Even so, mentally negotiable systems of *signs* do resemble
metaphoric displacements and substitutions enough for Emerson to assert,
"Every word was once a poem... Language is fossil poetry."[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
