Re: OT fallacies
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:33:55 +0200
Patrick May wrote:
> Alfredo Novoa writes:
>>>arguments. Further, Mr. Badour claimed to have addressed those
>>> 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 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
> > 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.
I've just read up on the c.o. thread that was the
prelude to this little culture clash :
http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.object/browse_frm/thread/24dfa436896b15b9/a6bc5a2211f0a796?lnk=st&q=OO+Assoc+RDBMS+models&rnum=1&hl=nl#a6bc5a2211f0a796 and while I don't particularly like his style (as he well knows), Alfredo Novoa is IMO doing quite a good job at backing up his claims - especially those challenged in a clear way. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 21:33:55 CEST