Re: Process Model

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:1mEcg.11914$A26.284015_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> David Cressey wrote:
>
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:8G5cg.10841$A26.266491_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> >>David Cressey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:V8Gbg.10236$A26.252515_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>I will assume Coad and Yourdon used 'functional decomposition' in
its
> >>>>>>engineering sense and not in the computing sense for dividing tasks
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>>>>parallel execution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Coad and Yourden were discussing analysis, and mentioned functional
> >>>>>decomposition as a way of analyzing the problem domain. They were
> >>>
> >>>building
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>towards a motivation for object oriented analysis, the subject of the
> >>>
> >>>book.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am familiar with the book. I read it years ago, and I stand by all
of
> >>>>my earlier statements.
> >>>
> >>>Your understanding of what you read is different from mine.
> >>
> >>That's the inevitable outcome when dealing with nebulous imprecision. It
> >>hardly merits saying.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>You posited some 'thing' unique to object orientation from which
others
> >>>>could learn or which one could apply to other fields, and you gave it
a
> >>>>name: 'process model'.
> >>>
> >>>When did I do that?
> >>
> >>Oh, puhlease... you know damned well when you did:
>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/58806cd6c7405bb0
> >
> > Your interpretation of what I wrote is strange, to say the very least.
> >
> > I posited nothing like what you say above.
>
> Should I then conclude you are unable to extract meaning from written
> english? This might then explain your different understanding of
> everything written in the language.
>

No. You should question your own ability to extract meaning from written English.
Anyone who would infer your summary from what I wrote is a crank.

> Your denial reeks of evasion and intellectual dishonesty.

This response reeks of inability to conduct a civil discussion. Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 17:55:49 CEST