A reply to Ian Dent

Ian Dent, whom I heavily criticised in my last post (or the automated cut’n’paste bot that claims to be him, it’s hard to tell) took the trouble to leave a reply. It’s long, and it’s largely irrelevant, like his report, you can read the full reply here

I’m mostly concerned with this bit, since the rest was utter cockwaffle, so much so that it would barely pass a Turing Test :

This document, produced by Ian Dent, has been orchestrated so as to stimulate the beginnings of a much needed public debate – to raise questions about decisions currently being made over our future, solely by ICT experts and the European Commission with NO active public debate in a common language.

Bollocks. The way it is framed, and the absolutely appalling way in which it is referenced, your busy swapping between UK and US styles of quotation that makes most of it look like ‘scare quotes’, and your complete misunderstanding of computer science terms of art contribute nothing to any such debate other than confusion.

Take IanPJ for instance, who claims to be trying to track down the EU document that he erroneously believes your quoted text “An ‘object’ in this [computing] context … ” to be drawn from.

The poor sod is convinced that because it’s a quote in a report about the EU that the relevant, sinister documentation must be buried deep within the EU. Had you referenced it, you could have saved him the ghastly heartache of this fruitless search, because it is taken directly from the Wikipedia article on Object Oriented Computing.

That part is double quoted, though unreferenced, and the rest of the time you seem to be using single quotes almost at random.

The phrase ‘Biological Economic Device’ appears to be your coinage, but you’ve put it in single quotes and bold for emphasis. Writing like this encourages the unwary to believe that everything you say is attributable to the EU, when in fact most of it is not.

As an academic is simply impossible that you are not aware of the proper conventions for quoting, referencing and footnoting, so one can only assume that your failure to use them properly here is a purposeful distortion.

We can see the results of that distortion, fielded with the weight of your academic credentials in IanPJ’s behaviour. He has run off completely confused in some paranoid never was fantasy panic.

So no Ian, your report contributes only confusion to any such debate, and I would also point out that the privacy and social implications of technology are being widely debated every single day. You managed to use Google to do most of your research, so how did you miss that ?

And last but not least, Ian

These are technical, complex and largely ‘un-soundbite-able’ issues. So a few references may help readers to investigate for themselves in a more measured and balanced way:

Well yes, Indeed they would, so why have you provided so few in your report ?

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by blind cyclists union, blind cyclists union. blind cyclists union said: Blogged – A reply to Ian Dent: http://wp.me/pwIDN-cK […]

  2. What kind of idiot are you? So you have found the Wikipedia description of Object Orientated Programming. It is used extensively every day by a whole host of companies, organisations, governments and researchers.

    It is however for the programmers, or their development teams and managers to find descriptions for the objects in those programmes being built, managed or tracked.

    Ian Dent’s concern, a concern I share indecently, is that the EU are leading, in their FP7 programme & the Commission Research Area (ERA) and by many of the research organisations feeding into those areas are using, extensively, the term biological economic device to refer to human beings as the descriptive term in its OOP.

    Again, I note that you are trying to shoot the messenger and not addressing the message.

    • “So you have found the Wikipedia description of Object Orientated Programming. It is used extensively every day by a whole host of companies, organisations, governments and researchers.”

      What is, the wikipedia definition ? If you mean OOP (hard to tell from your phrasing, but lets assume so), yes I know, I’m one of them, a sinister Technocrat, remember ?

      And recall, please, that this was the sinister technospeak that you are supposedly trying to track down as evidence of the EU’s uber sinister plan to enslave us all by GRIDS!

      “Ian Dent’s concern, a concern I share indecently, is that the EU are leading, in their FP7 programme & the Commission Research Area (ERA) and by many of the research organisations feeding into those areas are using, extensively, the term biological economic device to refer to human beings as the descriptive term in its OOP.”

      But they aren’t are they ? Because that was Dent’s coinage and neither of you can provide any reference to any single usage, let alone extensive refrences.

      “Again, I note that you are trying to shoot the messenger and not addressing the message.”

      No, fuckhead, I am quite happy to supply bullets to both. And to your bullshit while I’m busy.

      As we say in the wider internets, PPOSTFU or Post Proof Or Shut The Fuck Up.

      You can of course refute this at any point by providing a reference. Except you can’t, because there isn’t one.

      Dupe.

  3. This exchange now ended. I do not engage in debate about anything with anyone who introduces profanity to the conversation in order to shout down. You can rant all you like, but expect no response.

    • “I do not engage in debate about anything with anyone who introduces profanity to the conversation”

      Given the quality of your communication, that must leave you with very few people to talk to.

      And no IanPJ, it isn’t over because I made a swearie, it’s over because you are wrong, you have been proved wrong, and you now have no recourse left but to stamp off in a huff.

      “expect no response”

      Imagine that I care.

  4. fuckin great. Cheers for that. I got half way through that paper before i thought that this guys adding up stuff that doesnt exist and getting 5.

    Good fucking stuff. Cunts.

  5. Hi my name is Sandra and I just wanted to drop you a quick note here instead of calling you. I came to your A reply to Ian Dent | Blind Cyclists’ Union page and noticed you could have a lot more visitors. I have found that the key to running a popular website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your niche. There is a company that you can get targeted visitors from and they let you try the service for free for 7 days. I managed to get over 300 targeted visitors to day to my website. Visit them here: http://www.arvut.org/1/dft

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: