Re: To Bob Badour, sorry
Date: 17 Jun 2006 07:13:05 -0700
> Tony D a écrit :
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?
> > >
> > Oh dear. I didn't change a numbering when I added a point. Dear oh
> > dear. Well, that makes the whole thing invalid then, I suppose ?
> > > 1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
> > > 2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
> > > 3 - YES..
> > > 3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are
> > > full of crappola
> > > 4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up
> > > his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to
> > > barking dogs...
> > > 5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
> > > and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded
> > > spirit...
> > >
> > Maybe if you read what I had written a little more closely rather than
> > taking your customary, it seems, knee-jerk reaction to disagreement,
> > you would note that I wrote "poster", not "original poster" or "OP". My
> > comments were with regard to your post to Roy Hann. Pay attention.
> Misunderstood..But took time responding to your insults...
No insults there. If you really want some insults, I'm sure I could cook some up for you.
> > > Check
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
> > >
> > > for further details...
> > No, I don't think I will; I saw the title of that thread and decided it
> > was likely of little interest;
> I pointed out that link to answer your question...
> That says a lot about how superficial you are...you can actually make
> an entire idea about a subject through reading a title and without
> readining the content of thread
I can look at a thread title, and if it reads "Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model" then I'll pass. If any nuggets of worthwhile insight or value pop up, and I disregard them in a future post, I expect I will be pointed in the appropriate direction. Trawling 146 posts (current total on Google) doesn't seem to be a valuable use of time. (And before you ask, I can answer these posts in between doing other, more useful things. Reading a thread from top to bottom, starting off from a premise ("bridges between OO programming proponents and RM") that holds no great interest for me, would represent a far greater investment in time and concentration than I'm willing to devote to it just now.)
> I am not an OO advocate but if you would have taken the time to read
> the issue at hand it was about just about OO mechanisms but also how
> ANY programming or physical mechanism could help better relvar at
> physical level...Your knowledge of RM must be as superficial as your
> ability and motivation to get into technical and theoretical
It depends on the technical and theoretical exchange. I would have liked to have had more time available to answer Pickie's questions and concerns in the thread on Operationalizing Orthogonality, for example, as I'm certain they could have been allayed. Another time, perhaps. And as for the physical level, I'm so disinterested in that now that it surprises me. The most interesting things in computing science can probably be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, with a computer used only to verify the results. Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 16:13:05 CEST