I read the whole thing. Your "exception" is flawed because it's an exception to a flawed rule. There's a reason that writing skills lend themselves to programming and vice versa, and that reason flies in the face of your premise that programmers lack linguistic skills.

Jon88 wrote:

The thing is, the right way can be different for everyone. Everybody is different, and is better at learning in different ways. What matters is that they do learn and have fun doing it! :)

Jon's right; as long as people learn well, I don't think it matters how they learn. Still, I think learning off rips is bad, if only because most rips have bad, buggy, and inefficient, coding.

Hedgemistress wrote:

What the heck is so darn evil about that????

Nothing's evil about it at all. It's simply wrong, bad, unproductive. YES, you will eventually learn some DM doing it the "rip" way... but that's only because life isn't binary, either/or... you're not exclusively playing with blocks of code, you're also doing the actual learning in bits and pieces.

You learn faster and better, though, if you do less of the ripping and more of the learning. The ripping seems to be a shortcut because it gives you a finished product faster... but if your goal is to learn, it's not a shortcut, it's a detour.

Here's an example: Say you're learning Spanish. Every time you say three or more phrases, stop and hit yourself in the head with a hammer, not hard, just enough that you can feel it.

Hey, if you do that, you'll still end up learning Spanish, right? So clearly, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer works!

Isn't that what you're saying?

See, that's the same type of statement you're making in the previous post.

It's not the same type of statement at all. This is the problem with talking to somebody who lives in a universe that's not ruled by logic... all you go on is your belief/opinion/whatever and you assume that's all anybody else is going on. You can't see the weight or foundation behind anything that's not just taken as a pure assumption. :P

Was I argueing with you? No. You just make claims that are unfounded and completely bias. But then, that's your political view and your moral view too. You build everything on your own morals, you are your own foundation. So for you, your opinion about how I live in a "universe that's not ruled by logic" is completely built up on the assumption that you know more than anyone, and everyone that has ever lived or come before you.

Lady, I live in a universe whose master is the creator of all logic. And you can take that to the bank.

You speak as a liberal, and yet you are not liberal enough to understand the difference in the way we are made up. We were given our individuality for a reason. And I do not intend on throwing it away for you and your message that this life is utterly pointless and everything done in it is not a test of our merit, but a futile attempt to exist.

If someone learns differently than you, who are you to judge them? There is no evil in the way learning is achieved, if someone copies a published piece of code, modifies it, then goes back and redoes it. Is there really any harm done? No. So get back to the universe of reality and stop riding your high horse merely because you think that you know everything. You're understanding of morals is pathetic and malignant. You do not deserve to lecture me about logic or morals when your own are so far off base.
How can you argue logic or morals when you have nothing to base it off of? How? You can't because we are all fallible creatures who are subject to the whims of our emotions. Not one of us exists whose guidlines for logic are not skewed from the truth. There is only one being whose logic is perfect and no one knows his mind.

So before you go about throwing your wait around because you think that because you program well, that you are some goddess above reproach, think again.

It's still open.