subroutine stack and C machine model

[Nick Keighley]

all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity,

[/QUOTE]

note: it was "the creeps" that were using the worrd "clarity" not you.

which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]
You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.

you've twice called me a liar. I've used two dictionaries with
reasonable reputations. I didn't "pick the wrong definition", because
no other definition was offered. You used a larger dictionary with
more meanings (most of which are probably obsolete or rarely used)
and /you/ picked the wrong meaning. I (and "the creeps") are using
"clarity" in the normally accepted manner you are not.

clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

I didn't pick that.

No, I used the OED.

you are cherry picking the OED.

two inferior dictionaries.

 

[Nick Keighley]

[*]  Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with
a merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.

Hanlon's Razor applies.

in spades

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

No, he just cherry-picked.


Sort of.


"Easy to understand".

Yes, but Spinoza asserted:

you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

It's the "justifed true belief" part that he pulls out of his ass.

Since he then cherry-picks from "understanding" to get to the sense of
leading to knowledge, and then cherry-picks the definition of knowledge,
and then commits a category error to jump from knowledge of the statement's
meaning to knowledge of the world, he's not technically lying or delusional,
just completely wrong[*].

That's the same kind of game you can play by feeding a word into an
automatic translator, going through four languages and back to
English. I'm sure you can get from "black" to "white" by some route if
you tried.

-s
[*] Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with a
merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.

I doubt he's consciously lying. I've met people like that, they have a
process that just changes how they remember things, so they really
believe their version despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Seebs]

It's the "justifed true belief" part that he pulls out of his ass.

Well, yes, but his ass contains a list of the definitions of "understanding",
one of which includes knowledge, and also a particular definition of
the word "knowledge".

I doubt he's consciously lying. I've met people like that, they have a
process that just changes how they remember things, so they really
believe their version despite evidence to the contrary.

Yeah. But he's right, NPD is not a learning disability per se.

-s

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Well, yes, but his ass contains a list of the definitions of "understanding",
one of which includes knowledge, and also a particular definition of
the word "knowledge".

Realising that I'm beating a dead horse...
That reasoning isn't the original claim:

you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".

He "clearly" says that this is simply the meaning of "clarity", not
that it can be deduced from a chain of definitions.

If he'd said:

Clarity means understanding.
Understanding means knowledge.
Knowledge means truth.
Therefore clarity means truth.

the dubiousness of this would have been obvious.
But regardless of the merits of this, the whole idea is silly as the
"creeps" who described Schildt's writing as clear went on to say that
it was full of untruths.

By the way, I didn't see "justified true belief" mentioned in any of
the daisy chain of dictionary definitions.
That appears to be a proposition from philosophy, using their special
definitions. They define the term "knowledge" so that it refers to
things that are true. But in common usage that can't be assumed.

Yeah. But he's right, NPD is not a learning disability per se.

It sort of is. Because they never admit errors, and expunge them from
their minds, they never learn from their mistakes, so they can repeat
the same actions over and over despite failing almost every time. If
confronted with this they will try any means to change the subject,
usually by going on the attack on an unrelated topic. And a few months
later, again they will recount an unrecognizable version of events,
where they actually won, or perhaps were the victims of some
conspiracy. But they were never, ever at fault.

 

[spinoza1111]

On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <[email protected]>
all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]
You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:
I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.

clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]
Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
to go along with it.

No, I used the OED.

No, you made it up.

These are ALL the definitions of "clarity" in the OED:
(http://dictionary.oed.com)
CLARITY
1. Brightness, lustre, brilliancy, splendour. Obs. (An exceedingly
common sense in 17th c.)
    b. with pl. Obs.
    c. fig. ‘Light’. Obs.
2. Glory, divine lustre. Obs.
3. Illustrious quality; lustre of renown. Obs.
4. Clearness: in various current uses; e.g. of colour, sky,
atmosphere, sight, intellect, judgement, conscience, style.

And these are all the definitions of
CLEARNESS
The quality of being clear; in various senses of the adj.
1. Brightness, luminousness; splendour, brilliancy; fairness, beauty;
fineness of weather. Obs.
2. Freedom from opacity, obscurity, or discolourment; distinctness or
purity of light or colour; transparency, pellucidness.
3. Distinctness of vision, sound, expression, comprehension, etc.
4. Purity; innocence; openness. Obs.
5. Freedom from anything obstructive.

And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
"definition":
CLEAR:
 A. adj. I. Of light, colour, things illuminated.
1. a. orig. Expressing the vividness or intensity of light: Brightly
shining, bright, brilliant.
b. Now expressing the purity or uncloudedness of light; clear fire, a
fire in full combustion without flame or smoke. Also used with adjs.,
as clear white, brown, etc.
2. a. Of the day, daylight, etc.: Fully light, bright; opposed to dusk
or twilight. arch.
b. Of the weather: orig. Full of sunshine, bright, ‘fine’; serene,
‘fair’. Obs. (Cf. to clear up.)
c. Now: Free from cloud, mists, and haze; a ‘clear day’, ‘clear
weather’ is that in which the air is transparent so that distant
objects are distinctly seen; a ‘clear sky’, a sky void of cloud.
d. fig. Serene, cheerful; of unclouded countenance or spirit. Obs. or
arch.
3. a. Allowing light to pass through, transparent.
b. Of coloured liquids, etc.; Translucent, pellucid, free from
sediment, not turbid or opaque.
4. a. Bright or shining, as polished illuminated surfaces; lustrous.
(Now expressing esp. purity and evenness of lustre.)
b. gen. Bright, splendid, brilliant. Obs.
c. A common epithet of women: Beautiful, beauteous, fair. Obs.
d. Of the complexion, skin, etc.: Bright, fresh, and of pure colour;
blooming; in modern use, esp. implying purity or transparency of the
surface skin, and absence of freckles, discolouring spots, or
‘muddiness’ of complexion.
5. fig. Illustrious. [So L. clrus.] Obs.
II. Of vision, perception, discernment.
6. Of lines, marks, divisions: Clearly seen, distinct, well-marked,
sharp.
7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.
c. Not in cipher or code. Often absol., in clear.
8. Of a vision, conception, notion, view, memory, etc.: Distinct,
unclouded, free from confusion.
9. a. Manifest to the mind or judgement, evident, plain.
b. Of a case at law: Of which the solution is evident.
10. Of the eyes, and faculty of sight: Seeing distinctly, having keen
perception.
11. Of the faculty of discernment: That sees, discerns, or judges
without confusion of ideas.
12. Of persons: Having a vivid or distinct impression or opinion;
subjectively free from doubt; certain, convinced, confident, positive,
determined. Const. in (an opinion, belief), of (a fact), as to, on,
about (a fact, course of action), for (a course of action); that. I am
clear that = it is clear to me that. [So in 12th c. Fr.]
III. Of sound.
13. a. Of sounds, voice: Ringing, pure and well-defined, unmixed with
dulling or interfering noises; distinctly audible.
b. Phonetics. Designating one of two varieties of lateral consonants
(the other being called ‘dark’) (see quots.).
IV. Of moral purity, innocence.
14. fig. from 3: Pure, guileless, unsophisticated.
15. a. Unspotted, unsullied; free from fault, offence, or guilt;
innocent. Cf. CLEAN a.
b. Const. of, from.
V. Of free, unencumbered condition.
16. a. Of income, gain, etc.: Free from any encumbrance, liability,
deduction, or abatement; unencumbered; net.
b. Sheer, mere, bare, unaided. Obs.
17. Free from all limitation, qualification, question, or shortcoming;
absolute, complete; entire, pure, sheer. Cf. CLEAN a.
18. Free from encumbering contact; disengaged, unentangled, out of
reach, quite free; quit, rid.
a. with from.
b. with of. Quit, rid, free.
c. In such phrases as to get or keep (oneself) clear, to steer clear,
go clear, stand clear, the adjective passes at length into an adverb.
d. With n. of action.
19. Of measurement of space or time: combining the notions of senses
17, 18. a. Of distance. Cf. C. 5.
b. clear side (of a ship): see quot.
c. clear day or days: a day or days, with no part occupied or
deducted.
20. a. Free from obstructions or obstacles; unoccupied by buildings,
trees, furniture, etc.; open.
b. Free from roughnesses, protuberances, knots, branches; = CLEAN a.
12.
c. clear ship: a ship whose deck is cleared for action.
21. Free or emptied of contents, load, or cargo; empty; esp. of a
ship, when discharged.
22. Free from any encumbrance or trouble; out of debt; out of the hold
of the law.
23. Free from pecuniary complications.
24. slang. Very drunk. Obs.
25. a. U.S. slang. Free from admixture, unadulterated, pure, ‘real.’
clear grit: ‘real stuff’: see quots.
b. In technical or trade use.
B. adv. [Clear is not originally an adverb, and its adverbial use
arose partly out of the predicative use of the adjective, as in ‘the
sun shines clear’; partly out of the analogy of native English adverbs
which by loss of final -e had become formally identical with their
adjectives, esp. of CLEAN adv., which it has largely supplanted.]
1. Brightly, with effulgence; with undimmed or unclouded lustre. [Cf.
bright similarly used.]
2. In a clear or perspicuous manner; distinctly. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
3. Manifestly, evidently. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
4. a. With clear voice; distinctly; CLEARLY.
b. clear-away: entirely, completely.
5. a. Completely, quite, entirely, thoroughly; = CLEAN adv. 5. Obs.
exc. dial. and U.S.
b. With away, off, out, through, over, and the like; esp. where there
is some notion of getting clear of obstructions, or of escaping; =
CLEAN.
6. See other quasi-adverbial uses in A. 18c.
C. n. I. Elliptical uses of the adjective.
1. A fair lady, a ‘fair’. Obs.
2. Brightness, clearness. Obs.
3. The clear part of a mirror. Obs.
4. Painting. (pl.) Lights as opposed to shades.
5. a. Clear space, part of anything clear of the frame or setting;
phr. in the clear, in interior measurement. See A. 19.
b. Colloq. phr. in the clear: (a) out of reach; (b) unencumbered; free
from trouble, danger, suspicion, etc.; (c) having a clear profit.
orig. U.S.
II. Verbal n. from CLEAR v.
6. a. A clearing of the atmosphere, sky, or weather.
b. With adverbs: clear-out, an act of clearing out (see CLEAR v. 26);
clear-up, an act of clearing up, spec. the settlement of accounts (see
CLEAR v. 27g); also attrib.
D. Combinations.
1. With the adj.: chiefly parasynthetic; as clear-aired (having clear
air), clear-crested, -faced, -featured, -hearted, -limbed, -minded,
-pointed, -spirited, -stemmed, -throated, -toned, -voiced, -walled,
-witted, etc.
2. With the adv., as clear-dangling, -drawn, -judging, -seeing,
-shining, -smiling, -spoken, -standing, -swayed, -writ, etc. (See also
A. 1b.)
3. Special comb.: clear-air gust or turbulence, disturbance of the
atmosphere at high altitudes; clear-cake, a kind of confection, partly
transparent; clear-cut a., sharply-chiselled, sharply defined;
clear-cutness, the quality of being clear-cut; clear-cutting,
-felling, the cutting down and removal of every tree in a given area;
hence clear-fell, clear-felled adjs.; clear-light v., to illumine
clearly; clear-matin, some kind of bread; clear-skin Austral., an
unbranded beast (cf. clean-skin); also attrib.; clear-walk (see
quot.); clear-way, clearway, (a) (see quot. a 1884); (b) a path or
passage-way; (c) a road on which vehicles are not allowed to park or
wait; clear-wing, attrib., popular name of the Hawk-moths with
transparent wings (Ægeridæ); so clear-winged. Also CLEAR-EYED,
CLEAR-HEADED, CLEAR-STARCH, etc.
ADDITIONS SERIES 1993
clear, a., adv., and n.
Add: [C.] [I.] Sense 6 in Dict. becomes 7.
6. In Scientology, a person who has completed a course of dianetic
therapy and is considered free of neuroses and other physical or
mental ills. Cf. *PRECLEAR n.

================
Conclusion: either you're lying, or delusional.
In neither case will you admit your error, of

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

If there's anything worse than a redneck ignoramus, it's one with
broadband and a working credit card. Look at definition number 7. And
you shouldn't be using the full OED: it's not designed for people who
move their lips when they read, hoss. It's designed for teachers,
librarians and linguists, not for redneck retired programmers with
time on their hands.

 

[Seebs]

If there's anything worse than a redneck ignoramus, it's one with
broadband and a working credit card. Look at definition number 7.

We already pointed that out -- but you seem not to understand how
a dictionary works. That gives you that one of many meanings has a
particular word, one of the many meanings of which is the meaning
you were asserting.

Either you're schizoprhenic, you're lying, or you have NO idea how to
use a dictionary. I can't tell which.

And
you shouldn't be using the full OED: it's not designed for people who
move their lips when they read, hoss. It's designed for teachers,
librarians and linguists, not for redneck retired programmers with
time on their hands.

Actually, it's designed for pretty much anyone who can read. I grew
up with it, which is actually pretty obvious. (Hyperlexia ftw.)

-s

 

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 1, 4:28 am, Nick Keighley <[email protected]>
all of
you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
    1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
        luminous; unclouded.
        [Webster]
You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:

I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.

clarity: clearness [Chambers]
clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]

Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
to go along with it.

No, I used the OED.

I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (found in a charity shop for
12UKP!!)
[I've edited it to remove derivations (L, ME, OF) and examples]

Clarity
1. Brightness
2. Glory
3. Clearness: in various senses

 

[David Thompson]

I haven't written Fortran since 1978, but as I recall it was limited to
integer counters, and could count up or down, and your loop was
essentially like:

DO 10 I = J, K, L
... code ...
10 CONTINUE

where I was the loop variable, and J, K, L were initial, final, and step
values in some order I've forgotten (J, K, and L were allowed to be
variables or constants, but I can't remember if expressions were
allowed). The label was on the final statement but I always put it on a

Fortran allowed fltpt DO-var until F95 officially; of course much
earlier it was widely agreed to be a bad idea, due to the inherent
'fuzz' and machine-dependence of fltpt, and little used.

F66 didn't allow from/to/by expressions; F77 (and later) does, and as
noted requires them to be evauated (as-if) before loop start, i.e. not
affected by assignments during the loop; and you're not allowed to
change the loopvar explicitly (but the compiler is not required to
prevent you from making this mistake, especially in difficult cases).

CONTINUE (a NOOP) to assist possible later editing. The main drawback of
this (very limited) loop structure was to my mind that even if the
termination condition was satisfied at entry to the loop, the loop was
executed at least once.

That 'one-trip DO' also was F~66; it was fixed in F>=77. This trivium
is occasionally used in c.l.fortran as a kind of carbon-dating on
dusty-deck code people post seeking assistance.

 

[spinoza1111]

We already pointed that out -- but you seem not to understand how

Who's "we"? You're alone, I'd wot.

a dictionary works.  That gives you that one of many meanings has a
particular word, one of the many meanings of which is the meaning
you were asserting.

The Compact OED highlights the important meanings, whereas this rube
was overwhelmed by the full OED: he has no business using it, since
the full OED is meant to give ALL definitions over time. Like you,
he's another jolly forester who sees only trees.

Either you're schizoprhenic, you're lying, or you have NO idea how to
use a dictionary.  I can't tell which.

Whatever. But Harlan-the-rube is using the wrong dictionary, and you
destroyed the good name of a man without any professional or academic
standing.

Actually, it's designed for pretty much anyone who can read.  I grew
up with it, which is actually pretty obvious.  (Hyperlexia ftw.)

More like Logorrhoea: in the sense of a very small ratio x/y of ideas
x to words y. "C: the Complete Nonsense" a good example of a document
without an organizing principle that through a combination z/w of
incompetence and dishonesty failed to mention the important issue:
that Microsoft platforms, for a variety of time-to-market and
commercial reasons differ radically from the unix platforms that
originally supported C.

 

[Seebs]

Who's "we"? You're alone, I'd wot.

Perhaps. I did, however, point out that definition 7 was consistent
with your claims.

The Compact OED highlights the important meanings, whereas this rube
was overwhelmed by the full OED: he has no business using it, since
the full OED is meant to give ALL definitions over time. Like you,
he's another jolly forester who sees only trees.

Even if we pick only the most-important meanings, there's still multiple
meanings, which rather kills your point.

-s

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

The Compact OED highlights the important meanings, whereas this rube
was overwhelmed by the full OED: he has no business using it, since
the full OED is meant to give ALL definitions over time. Like you,
he's another jolly forester who sees only trees.

You asserted that your definition was in the OED.
I used the most complete version, under every possible heading, to
give the best chance of proving you right, even if this was found
under the most obscure, obsolete jargon. But they were not.
When the Shorter OED was cited, you sneered at that as the "wrong
version". All OED editions are based on the full OED as cited above,
so if it's not in that, it isn't in any.

So as the words you"quote" as from the OED have been proven not to be
there, thus you are a liar.

 

[spinoza1111]

Perhaps.  I did, however, point out that definition 7 was consistent
with your claims.


Even if we pick only the most-important meanings, there's still multiple
meanings, which rather kills your point.

No, it rather doesn't. You said Schildt was "clear". EVERYBODY says
this, including his enemies. But the only way a text can be clear is
that it contributes to understanding, which is knowledge, the
justified belief in things that are true.

It's like saying "everything you know is wrong", an adolescent
catchphrase with little meaning but some currency on the Internet,
which is dominated by adolescent white males.

What does "everything you know is wrong" mean? What would "everything
Herb knows and says clearly is actually wrong", your thesis, mean?

It means "I don't give a shit about anything except video games
because I'm a loser, and in a video game, knowledge is easy to
manipulate, as opposed to the real world".

You were playing a video game called "I'm an expert programmer". Along
came mean old Herb and described what to you was the wrong game,
because it involved a Microsoft expertise which you hate. The problem
is that ADULTS trying to do WORK need to GET STARTED on real
platforms, and unless they are on unix platforms, much of what YOU
want them to know will be as wrong or pernicious in their world as
Herb's might be misguidance in yours.

 

[Seebs]

In

I've already explained why that argument is nonsense. Because you're
not good at remembering stuff, however, I'll remind you of the
explanation. "All elephants are green" is a clear statement. It
happens to be false, but it is certainly clear. Clarity does not
imply truth.

There are two separate flaws with the argument.

The first is that it's heavily based on equivocation and cherry-picking
of terms. The second, though, which is much more important:

The understanding is of *the statement*. Not of the world the statement
may or may not describe. When a sentence is clear, you can readily form
justified true belief *about the meaning of the sentence*. That doesn't
mean that the sentence's meaning can't be false. It is hard to form
a justified true belief of a poorly-worded or misconstructed sentence,
because it is hard to have justification of your interpretation; it
could mean something else, or it could be too hard to even form a coherent
interpretation.

The problem is that Spinny is mistaking the understanding that the sentence
in question has a particular meaning for understanding that the meaning is
true. "Understanding" the text "all elephants are green" does not lead to
the belief that elephants are green, it leads to the belief that that sequence
of words makes a statement about the color of a particular kind of land
mammal. Which belief is justified and true -- but it turns out that the
statement made is false. You can have a true belief that a statement is
false...

-s

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

On Nov 10, 12:23 am, Seebs <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it rather doesn't. You said Schildt was "clear". EVERYBODY says
this, including his enemies.

Let's assume this is so.

But the only way a text can be clear is
that it contributes to understanding,

This is ONE meaning of clear, not "the only way" (you're ignoring
the other 30 or so meanings of the word as in the OED), but assume
that for the moment.

which is knowledge,

Not equivalent, just one meaning. I could quote the similarly long and
various definitions of "understanding" and "knowledge", but you'll
just ignore them, as you do any facts that disagree with the
conclusion you are heading to.

the justified belief in things that are true.

This again is just one definition of "knowledge". Not one that any of
the people whose descriptions of Schildt's work you are attempting
to spin could have had in their minds, since most went on to say that
he made factual errors.

It means "I don't give a shit about anything except video games
because I'm a loser

The return to sneering and personal abuse signals that you have come
to the end of the attempt to justify your bullshit, and that you have
again failed.

Simple example:

A) My home street address is an even number.
B) My home street address is an odd number.

Both statements are equally clear.
Only one of these is true at this moment.

 

[Seebs]

Simple example:

A) My home street address is an even number.
B) My home street address is an odd number.

Both statements are equally clear.
Only one of these is true at this moment.

Spinny's argument would be that only the one which is true is "clear", because
he's mistaken knowledge about statements for knowledge about the world.

-s

 

[Nick]

No, it rather doesn't. You said Schildt was "clear". EVERYBODY says
this, including his enemies. But the only way a text can be clear is
that it contributes to understanding, which is knowledge, the
justified belief in things that are true.

Is English your native language? I ask because it's hard to come up
with a clearer statement than "Eating cyanide is good for you". Yet
from the quoted paragraph you either think that's not clear (it is) or
it "contributes to a justified belief in things that are true" (it
doesn't).

 

[spinoza1111]

Is English your native language?  I ask because it's hard to come up
with a clearer statement than "Eating cyanide is good for you".  Yet

No, it's not clear, because it has to be assigned an ironic meaning to
make sense.

 

[spinoza1111]

In <[email protected]>, Colonel Harlan

Sanders wrote:

Don't even try this style of argument without studying philosophy,
because it shows that you don't understand the difference between
"use" and "mention". Neither (A) nor (B) is performed as a speech act
so it's moot whether either is "clear" (is said clearly). Whereas
Seebach conceded that Herb's statements, which were performed as
speech acts, were clear (conducive to understanding and knowledge or
justified true belief).

This is because Seebach believes there is, or should be, a Higher form
of Unclear Knowledge which will never be Clear except to the autistic
twerp adept. The hope that such knowledge exists, and that it would
make a paraprofession into a closed profession without legal and
political work such as only grownups can do, has long existed.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Spinny's argument would be that only the one which is true is "clear", because
he's mistaken knowledge about statements for knowledge about the world.

Then by definition, Schildt's books are not "clear".

But this is a really pointless cul de sac. The same people who said
Schildt was clear also said he was incorrect. The meaning they
intended is "clear", and it's not Spinoza's.