Re: Auto Fill Comments

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 at 8:00 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Arthur Miller" <arthur.miller@live.com>
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>, "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Auto Fill Comments
>
> * Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2020-11-27 09:28]:
>
> > > What does make sense to help in understanding is using dictionaries
> > > and finding definitions.
> > Indeed; my engish really sux I know! Thank your posting the meaning of
> > world kill, being long time until I worked on my glossary.
>
> > Frankly I said old; I didn't said obsolete; nor incomprehensive;
> > on contrary. Didn't you read that from the message I tried to
> > convey?
>
> I see, thank you.
>
> > I think you are going into waters we don't need to go to here. I was
> > illustrating to the guy that everybody can find things to disslike, but
> > at the end terminology is just names, just a combination of characters
> > or sounds not to get attached to.
>
> That is it.
>
> But in general I was thinking I am replying on other person's
> statement, maybe I got lost. My point is exactly is you stated above
> that one may dislike things and that it is better to look what the
> word really is, just characters and sounds and meanings.
>
> There is no logical need to connect those meanings to get reminded of
> any problems. But that is in fact so, people do, as we are not
> perfect.
>
> Specific words and writings are triggers for unexpected reactions
> which historical source does not stem from the present time.
>
> > > The word in itself is harmless. Trauma that person associates with the
> > > word is what hurts the person. To lessen that effect it is advisable
> > > to find the true meanings of the words used and in which context as
> > > that way one will not use the imaginative meanings or wrong meanings
> > > that stem from person's mind.
> > For the record; I have no traumas, and if I did I would certainly not
> > ask for the advice on the Internet but I can't be not to comment your
> > statements:
>
> I do not refer to you personally. I referred to "reminding of
> killings" when reading the word "kill" in Emacs Manual.

Perhaps they lived in Louisiana!

> > Do you mean, when people have traumas, they should get a dictionary to
> > read, to make them feel better? Because that is what you are saying! :D
> > Is that seriously what you are claiming, or you are just trying to be
> > ironic/sarcastic?
>
> I was specific and not sarcastic neither ironic. Neither I said what
> you say in this paragraph neither meant it so. Sorry for
> misunderstanding.
>
> If any person does not know the meaning of a word "kill" in the sense
> of wiping out some text or lines, that person may connect the word to
> the only meaning that person knows which could be related to causing
> to die. As the intention of the manual is not to cause people think
> what it was meant, reader could be aware that something is not logical
> there and should be able to find the true meaning of the word "kill"
> in the context where it relates to deleting parts of text. This way
> any raised emotions or memories or associations are calmed down.
>
> > That sounds a little bit odd if you believe that people have traumas
> > because they got wrong meaning of a word.
>
> I did not say so neither expressed it so, maybe I have not expressed
> myself very clear. My point was just the same as you said that words
> are words with its characters, sound and meanings.
>
> > I would rather claim the opposite. Also saying people use
> > imaginative meanings is quite a wild claim; that is somethign you
> > would have to assert on per case basis.
>
> You may claim the opposite but you did not see that I do not claim the
> opposite neither is important.
>
> When I mentioned "imaginative meaning" I meant "the one meaning out of
> context that person has". When reading the word "kill" without knowing
> what it means in the context of deleting text, the only thing person
> can think of is "causing somebody to die".
>
> By simple reading one can over time learn what words mean without
> consulting dictionary, but by consulting the proper definition one
> learns it faster.
>
> Example sentence:
>
> Haskell programmer lost significant weight as he never came trough his
> larval stage.
>
> Without knowing what "Haskell" is or "larval stage" person reading
> that sentence can get other meanings, what I meant with "imaginative"
> meanings, those known to the person. What if instead of "Haskell" we
> used "Brainfuck"?
>
> Brainfuck programmer lost significant weight as he never came trough his
> larval stage.
>
> Then person could think that programmer is brainfucked instead that
> programmer works in brainfuck language. Right? In absence of a true
> meaning readers will put their own meanings or imaginative meanings or
> replacements.
>
> One has to know definition of each word to understand it and to
> prevent replacement meanings that occur by itself when one does not
> know the true one.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
>
> Larval stage:
> http://catb.org/jargon/html/L/larval-stage.html
>
> My important point is that Emacs Manual uses word "kill" or other
> words that in other contexts mean something else. Readers are advised
> to find the definition in dictionaries that fits into the context. If
> such cannot be found as it is computer terminology then maybe asking
> here or searching Internet can help.
>
>