«

I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
free to post your IQs and EQs!

In message <ae3c092a-4fa2-4d9f-8a26-
egroups.com>, bert <> writes
>On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:19:46 AM UTC+1, MikeP wrote:
>> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
>> free to post your IQs and EQs!
>
>That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
>wouldn't it? When I worked as a programmer, the management
>attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
>code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
>as its author, especially after he had gone. On that basis,
>the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!

I couldn't agree more!

Clever code is usually an oxymoron.

BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
understood than any other language. (Even Americans manage basic
English


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2011-03-29, MikeP <> wrote:
> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
> free to post your IQs and EQs!

Scientific progress is amazing. It used to be that a poll of Usenet
participants who wanted to post unverified claims would not have been
regarded as a reliable source of data.

-s
--
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

In message <>, osmium
<> writes
>Someone wrote:
>
>>> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
>>> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
>>> understood than any other language. (Even Americans manage basic
>>> English
>
>My theory as to the reason for the popularity is that the island of Great
>Britain had a lot of oak forests so the people living there could build big
>ships and conquer the world with their navy.

That is not the reason.

In WW2 there was a requirement to teach pilots from many nations who
could not speak English. So some research was done. Apparently English
is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be understood.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:

>
> egroups.com>, bert <> writes
> >
> >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> >wouldn't it? When I worked as a programmer, the management
> >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> >as its author, especially after he had gone. On that basis,
> >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>
> I couldn't agree more!
>
> Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> understood than any other language.

English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
as English Japanese dictionaries

w..

In message <17q968->, William Ahern
<> writes
>Chris H <> wrote:
>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> understood.
>
>Citations? No anecdotes, please.

Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
taught faster than anything else.

Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
> Chris H<> wrote:
>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> understood.
>
> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>

Forming the past of a verb?

Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.

No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
like Spanish or French.

Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
in French or other Latin languages.

The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
like Spanish.

Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
than other languages.

In message <imurfb$csl$>, jacob navia
<> writes
>Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
>> Chris H<> wrote:
>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>> understood.
>>
>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>
>Forming the past of a verb?
>
>Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>
>No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
>like Spanish or French.
>
>Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
>in French or other Latin languages.
>
>The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
>if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
>like Spanish.
>
>Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to
>learn than other languages.

Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
poor grammar and wrong word usage.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<17q968->, William Ahern
> <> writes
>> Chris H<> wrote:
>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>> understood.
>>
>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>
> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
> taught faster than anything else.
>
> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific location
within the book, where something was discussed. Can you provide such an
old-fashioned citation?

I would expect English researchers to have a bias toward English, and
would be suspicious of the possibility that the research was conducted
without adequate protection against such bias (particularly given the
wartime context of the research). Only a careful examination of the
research report could provide sufficient evidence to counter that
suspicion. I personally do not have sufficient interest to bother
finding and reading such a report, but the William Ahern might.
--
James Kuyper

In message <imv0s5$21l$>, James Kuyper
<> writes
>On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message<17q968->, William Ahern
>> <> writes
>>> Chris H<> wrote:
>>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>>> understood.
>>>
>>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
>> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
>> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
>> taught faster than anything else.
>>
>> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet. When I read
>> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?
>
>Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
>URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific
>location within the book, where something was discussed. Can you
>provide such an old-fashioned citation?


Probably but I don't have the time or inclination



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/