Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

> I am personally not interested in any "tit-for-tat" between other member in c.d.t. nonsense, so will not engage any further.

First, it seems hypocritical to me, that someone who initiated "tit-for-tat" in other threads (see "Data Model" or "Storing data and code") is now calling it nonsense and does not wish to engage in it any further.

Second, you have barely engaged in this thread all. You have only posted 3 out of the total 67.

Third, I don't like "tit-for-tat" that goes overboard either. I like constructive discussions and cool-headed verification of assertions. So when you call my solution a "sledgehammer", I want you to provide some verifiable proof. Usually when people make such assertions, they can't provide any proof and will instead engage in a seemingly endless "tit-for-tat" strategy as you have.

> I have no agenda other than improving my own understanding of the subject area

How were you improving your understanding by calling my solution a "sledgehammer"?

> ... wish you good luck with the adoption of your 'model'.

Thanks. Apparently something similar was already accepted 20 years ago. So now I will be accused of re-inventing it :) Received on Sat Apr 15 2006 - 05:21:16 CEST