On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:09 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
<spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:bhhhq5hbeu20fbnrh86mug6ubosvjasb1f@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 023:05 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mf7gq5l5saf5qrut55amhr9e7hh4u76hj6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>>>> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>
>>>>>You really would make a great teacher.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you are grasping at straws.
>>>>
>>>> You asked a question, the answer was given to you in terms that anyone
>>>> who is very familiar with the workings of a computer would understand.
>>>> You didn't understand.
>>>>
>>>> If you ask an engineer to tell you whether a beam will support
>>>> something he will reply with a mass of mathematics which, if you
>>>> understand will be because somewhere you obtained sufficient education
>>>> to understand.
>>>>
>>>> However, in essence, you were correct, you didn't understand and
>>>> therefore the writer didn't communicate, but would it have made you
>>>> feel better had he written "I'd tell you but YOU wouldn't understand"?
>>>> Because essentially that is what you are implying.
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>>Step by step instructions would be ideal. However I appreciate that might
>>>be too time consuming. It's not his response which is irritating, it's
>>>his
>>>and other peoples ' assertion that he has explained himself as clearly as
>>>possible. This is clearly transparently false.
>>>
>>>And this issue of whether information can be said to exist in the absence
>>>of
>>>a conscious mind is much more interesting than might initially be
>>>supposed.
>>>It has ramifications for whether a computer can ever said to be able to
>>>understand or be conscious for example. But let's not get into that.
>>
>> The point is that he did give you step by step instructions,even to
>> actually writing the HTML instructions that you needed. The point that
>> you do, or do not, understand is, in a sense, immaterial. You asked
>> the man and the man told you.
>
>Well I followed his instructions as carefully as possible supplemented with
>reading various webpages. It doesn't work.
Strange. After this discussion got up to speed I did try the bloke's
instruction. They worked.
But then, you seem a bit strange.You seem to believe that somehow,
perhaps with their magic wand, anyone who is instructing you will,
somehow, bludgeon the knowledge into your skull and Viola! You will
know. If you don't know it is the fault of someone else.... you don't
have to exert yourself, you simply tip your head back and open your
mouth, like a baby bird, and someone else will pour the knowledge in.
You don't even have to chew.
My experience, and from your writing I am certain that my experiences
far outweigh yours, is that all the Instructor can do is make the
information available. It is up to the student to assimilate it.
John B.