MS's support logic

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:36:29 -0500, "R. C. White"
wrote:

Hi, Gene.

"It is important to write so that you can be understood. It is far more
important to write so that you cannot be misunderstood."

I don't know where that line originated, but I saw it 40 years ago in The
CPA Handbook. The author was emphasizing the importance of accuracy and
clarity in writing financial reports, especially when expressing an
auditor's opinion on financial statements after examining those reports.

A good line. In practice, it is impossible, but it is an ideal I
strive for.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:29:56 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 06:52:25 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:11:00 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:


My motto was, If you can read Shakespeare, you can read anything.

Beowulf?

My question would have been Japanese camera manuals from the 60's; I
like your question better.


My favorite manual was for 1970' era Toyota Corolla - where 'cigarette
lighter' was spelled 'cigalette righter'.

I had a lab partner a long time ago who was a Japanese national. In
papers where he used my name, he intermixed Bloch and Broch randomly.

But he was a great guy, so I accepted that. Anyway, imagine how I would
have done in Japanese :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:55:21 +0100, John wrote:

And try these:

Okay, but only because I (temporarily) trust you not to torture me
...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ4LCejQg8o

Those guys are *good*. Strange, foreign, sort of nearly Russian-ish
and interesting. But I've always loved choirs, even things like the
Mormon Tabernacle one and Kings College. THe MTC's rendition of
Christmas tunes can be stunningly beautiful.
I don't know who the bloke introducing the Hungarians was but the
Choir itself is worth listening to. I just wish I had good Hungarian.
I *hate* subtitles, I much prefer to know what's really going on.
I almost understood the tune about banjo's and Alabama ... maybe my
Hungarian's improving?

I don't think Hungarians would necessarily understand the singers
either, since the language is Bulgarian :-)

....Except in the last song (which I chose not to hear - I never liked it
even when sung by Norteamericanos).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:41:05 +0100, John wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:02:05 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:47:47 +0100, John wrote:

Possible. I heard a young lady play an accordion beautifully a few
months ago in a resort town in England. I wanted to take her home and
keep her she was so brilliant and musical[1] but I *loath* bagpipes.
All bagpipes. Always have. Always will.

OK, here comes my missionary impulse.

Have you heard any of the various French, Bulgarian, Greek, Spanish,
Breton, Macedonian, Romanian, Hungarian bagpipes? Even Uilleann pipes?

They vary all over the place in sound and in the types of music they
play...

Me, I love them :-)

Here's a random (no, not random at all) oddity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft9qUcu1mvU&NR=1

Watch & listen if you dare or are willing. Or don't, that's OK too...

As it is you and I trust your escutcheon ...
*OH* *FOR* *FUX* *SAKE*!!!
I truly did not think anything short of a police siren zapping by at
80-plus could be worse than the Scottish screamers but *that* *is*!
Sorry, pal, but there is definitely something wrong with your hearing
if you think that is anything resembling music.
Or maybe something wrong with mine? Because I certainly don't.

I would far rather listen to screeching fingernails on slate, thin
sheet metal being drilled or 1950's dentistry in action than any more
of that one.

Am I broken?
J.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

And it's a good thing, too, or I'd have to call you evil names :-)

And of course vice versa...

I just posted a random (i.e., the first one I found on YouTube) of
Northumbrian pipes to show Ken Blake how they work. And I just let the
clip play on because:

1. I am enjoying the clip

2. I had no real knowledge of how they sound, so I'm learning something.

Looks like I better not recommend that you view and hear that clip,
though :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:09:36 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
....

The Mac version supported back one version of MacOS.
But judging from my otherwise normal, Mac-using friends,
I get the feeling that they like the way Apple does it. The
forced obsolescence gives them an excuse to buy a shiny,
new Mac.

By paying with lots of shiny new coins...

Disclaimer: I'm not particularly bugged by Apple's prices, I just saw
the pun and had to post.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig


No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)


If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

No, via the elbow-operated bellows.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What was the one-word telegram sent by General Sir Charles Napier to his
superiors after his conquest of Sindh Province in India?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:32:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

The player has two arms. Watch them both.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:57:15 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:32:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

The player has two arms.


LOL! Yes, he does.


Watch them both.

Yes, I see what you mean. He's operating a bellows with his right arm.

I've never seen anyone else do this. Have you? I wonder if this is
something he dreamed up and built himself.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:06:22 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:57:15 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:32:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

The player has two arms.


LOL! Yes, he does.


Watch them both.

Yes, I see what you mean. He's operating a bellows with his right arm.

I've never seen anyone else do this. Have you? I wonder if this is
something he dreamed up and built himself.



Now I have. I just played a couple of other YouTube videos that that
one linked do. They all do it!

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2014-08-12 4:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
[]
b) Clarity, concision, correctness, in that order.

Three things.

Correctness is first for me, then clarity, then conciseness. Why
bother if you are not going to go for correctness first?

Because "correctness" is for too many writers the silly rules they
learned in Grade Six, is why.

Ah, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood you - I think Gene
may have. I (we?) assumed you meant correctness of content (which we
couldn't understand not being first), not "correctness" of grammar.
Obviously, the priorities might vary when you're writing other than
factual material.

I think every responder so far has ignored "Know your audience". I
could elaborate on that, in fact I often have. Hint: Included in that
principle is "What does the audience expect?" The answers go a good
deal beyond what you and others have alluded to. Another hint:
"audience" implies an occasion or context, and hence a purpose for the
composition. Corollary: this principle applies to all content, not only
written.

You can make certain _assumptions_ about your audience; however, your
work may (especially if it survives a long time) reach audiences other
than the one(s) you have in mind at the time of writing.

For factual writing, I'd say correctness (of the facts) _is_ the most
important - but I'm not sure whether conciseness or correctness comes
next. _Probably_ conciseness, _provided_ any incorrectnesses in the
grammar aren't so crass as to make the meaning hard to discern.

That's why I place clarity first.

You said clarity, "concision", correctness. For factual work, I put
correctness - of the content - first; there's no point in being crystal
clear if you're wrong.

For fiction/poetry/whatever, I'd say quality of content (how good a
story it is) comes first, probably analogous to factual accuracy in
factual writing.

Well, no, actually, because every story has been told already. Many,

An interesting and common proposition. I suspect there are a few
genuinely new stories, but we'll leave that be; in the above "how good a
story it is" can be replaced by "how good a story, or at least how well
told, it is"; I would still put that on the same level with factual
accuracy in factual writing, i. e. ahead of all other considerations.
Followed by clarity and conciseness, not necessarily in that order.

many times. "Of making many books there is no end". It's _how_ the
story is told that differentiates a good novel from a bad one.

Dr Johnson said, "It is the poet's task to make familar things new, and
new things familiar." That applies to all content, even the most
factual. As someone else said, "The trick in doing science is to look
at what everyone else has looked at, and see what no one else has
noticed." Those two quotes are variations on the same theme.

Only if you _do_ consider fiction and science the same, and accept the
hypothesis that there are no new stories. Although both are true a lot
of the time, I'd say not in all cases - I would say that there are some
new stories, and I am more certain that there is new science: I find the
second quote easier to disagree with.

The next most important, I'm less sure of in this case.

The three principles apply to the _writing_, ie, the medium. They don't
apply to the content. That's covered in Know Your Audience. Eg, for a
non-expert audience, you must include a lot of stuff that is as
familiar a breathing to an expert audience.

Well, again, there was/is misunderstanding of what you intended to
convey by "correctness". It is increasingly clear (since you are
applying the "three principles") to the _writing_ that, when you said
"correctness", you meant "adherence to [arguable] grammatical rules". I
would agree that this is not necessarily the most important _in that
case_. When applied to the _content_, especially for factual writing,
I'd say it _is_ the most important (and for fictional, I'd replace it
with how good - or, how well told - the story is).

[...]

A recommendation: Elements of Style, by Strunk. A few of his rules have
been overtaken by changes in usage, but the basic principles are
exactly what I teach: Clarity, concision, and correctness. In that
order. Orwell's Politics and the English Language is an extended
meditation why and how political language violates these princples.

I'd also recommend Eric Partridge: a glorious pedant, rather a _lot_ of
whose rules no longer apply to modern usage, but whose writing is still
enjoyable on the subject (to me, anyway!). Fowler is also widely
appreciated, though I don't have a copy of his best-known work. (One of
the works is called "Modern English Usage": I think it's Fowler. I can't
check as my Partridge is on loan at the moment.)

BTW, the difference between factual and fictional writing (etc) is an

No, _that_ is an illusion (-:.

illusion. A movie "based on a true story" is just as much a movie as

I'd certainly not expect total accuracy from one "based on": that
implies to me that dramatic licence has been taken. (And may well make a
better story; I've no problem with that.)

one based on an invented one. If one doesn't understand this, one may
well believe that a documentary must be true, while a fiction must be
false. In both, it's the meaning of the story that's true or false.

Getting very metaphysical here! I'd expect a documentary to be mostly
true, if presented as such, though - especially if dramatised - to
include parts (especially dialogue) that are invented, though if well
done the invention should be plausible and based on a study of the
characters involved. I have no problem, either, with fiction being false
- I more or less expect it - though can parallel truth, sometimes
unbeknown to the writer(s). [Not infrequently one hears of episodes of
serials being pulled - or postponed - in light of occurrences in the
"real" world.]

Meaning subsists in the structure of the story, ie, the arrangement of
the facts. If it were not so, historians wouldn't argue about what
caused the Great War. Of course we want a plausible answer to this

They can argue about the causes, not that it took place, though.

question, if only because our grandfathers and greatgrandfathers fought
in that war. But The Game of Thrones deals with the same human impulses
and desires as led to the Great War. Both history and fiction are true
to the extent that they account for how these impulses and desires play
out.

Have a good day,

You too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What was the one-word telegram sent by General Sir Charles Napier to his
superiors after his conquest of Sindh Province in India?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:08:29 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:06:22 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:57:15 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:32:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

The player has two arms.

LOL! Yes, he does.

Watch them both.

Yes, I see what you mean. He's operating a bellows with his right arm.

I've never seen anyone else do this. Have you? I wonder if this is
something he dreamed up and built himself.

Now I have. I just played a couple of other YouTube videos that that
one linked do. They all do it!

I copied this link before I read your second reply :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbrian_smallpipes

I hope some of the links you followed were not by Andy May :-)

The Uilleann (AKA Union) pipes are also inflated with bellows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uilleann_pipes

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:33:13 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:08:29 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:06:22 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:57:15 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:32:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:37 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:46:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:14:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:48:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Then there's the Northumbrian Smallpipes - a very sweet sound. (No lung
power involved, though I don't know if that has anything to do with the
sound.)


As I understand it, there's really never any lung power involved. the
sound is made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force
air through the pipes. The blowing is only used to keep the bag
inflated, and if the song is short enough or the bag big enough, that
isn't needed.

Interesting. The Northumbrian pipes don't have a mouth tube though -
they're _entirely_ elbow-power. (I think the bellows must have a valve.)

If the bags aren't inflated by mouth, they must be inflated some other
way--perhaps a foot-operated device.

By the player's arm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMK7K5RIig

No, the arm isn't used to inflate the bag; as I said, the sound is
made by the player's arm pressing against the bag to force air through
the pipes.

The player has two arms.

LOL! Yes, he does.

Watch them both.

Yes, I see what you mean. He's operating a bellows with his right arm.

I've never seen anyone else do this. Have you? I wonder if this is
something he dreamed up and built himself.

Now I have. I just played a couple of other YouTube videos that that
one linked do. They all do it!

I copied this link before I read your second reply :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbrian_smallpipes

I hope some of the links you followed were not by Andy May :-)


Since that was the one you sent, no, none of the others were.



The Uilleann (AKA Union) pipes are also inflated with bellows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uilleann_pipes



Clearly I've heard pipes a lot more often than I've seen them. Thanks
very much for setting me straight.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:05:02 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:29:56 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

[snip]

My favorite manual was for 1970' era Toyota Corolla - where 'cigarette
lighter' was spelled 'cigalette righter'.

I had a lab partner a long time ago who was a Japanese national. In
papers where he used my name, he intermixed Bloch and Broch randomly.

But he was a great guy, so I accepted that. Anyway, imagine how I would
have done in Japanese :-)

I saw an official Chinese document that confused "u" and "n" and
had three spellings of "birthdate", all in less than 100 words.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko