Re: OT fallacies

From: Patrick May <pjm_at_spe.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:04:56 +0100
Message-ID: <m24pz02147.fsf_at_Dagney.local>

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> writes:
> > That's an . . . interesting defense of rudeness, but avoids
> > the real issue in the thread that spawned this one. Mr. Badour,
> > among others, immediately accused Mr. Martin, among others, of
> > "ignorance" and "foolishness" without responding to Mr. Martin's
> > arguments. Further, Mr. Badour claimed to have addressed those
> > arguments but refused to provide evidence of having done so.
>
> Imagine that someone joins to a medicine group and starts to write
> that promiscuous sex without protection is completely safe,
> presenting evidently ridiculous and tricked arguments.
>
> Which kind of responses would you expect?
>
> What Martin and others write in comp.object is nearly as foolish as
> that.

     So you keep claiming. Backing up your claims, even once, would be a lot more convincing than the hot air and puerile insults that I've seen so far.

Sincerely,

Patrick

---

S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO

                       | systems design and implementation.
          pjm_at_spe.com  | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)

Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 21:04:56 CEST