Talk:Debabrata Biswas

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) begin: This article may be stubbish to some, but it is already very informative and accurate. Politically and musically aware people of Bengal will know (those of them to deign to occasionally access wikipedia: i must say that of the people I speak of, the apparent snobbery is justified. [Confession: I'm one of them - there are lots of us in bengal - i.e. w.bengal[india]+bangladesh - and we dont unneccessarily try to know each other - whats the ponit? - does this recall mycroft holmes's diogenes club? - but I deign - not only to access wp but to edit it anonymously since sept 2001 and signed - for a specific reason - since a fortnight or so]).

To summarise: 1. this is a wonderful article already. 2. bots (and botlike humans) will rate a 100000-page syntactically well linked but content-free[*] text way above deep and/or 'stubbish' informative text. Well to quote Kurt vonnegut, bots and botoids can go take a flying fuck at the mooooooooooooooon!

[*] content-free [old joke inspired by the chomsky heirarchy (not anarachy, but this is a technical heirarchy of formal languages so it oesnt conflict with noam's anarchism...)- context-free-grammar immideately suggests content-free-grammar that a class of people, not necessarily all'postmodern' and not necesssarily all postmoderns - e.g. foucault made a lot of excellent points]

PS: did I do a lot of sort-of-unstructured lisp programming at some stage of my life? Of course, that's why so many parentheses in above! But I havnt run it through a (human) interpreter (nor compiler) so the paranthesis maybe have made above syntavtically 'incorrect'. No matter, my targer audience is *real* humans. end.

23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)