Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

George wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Andrew McDonagh wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh God, Dan, I like others, gave up trying to find wisdom, knowledge or
> > > anything of use within Bob's post, long ago.
> >
> > Well, gee, Andrew, at least when you say that you're not even
> > trying to understand Bob, that is more honest than when you
> > say that Bob isn't actually saying anything. The fact that the
> > problem lies with you vs. Bob is an important distinction.
> >
>
> Marshall, why are you sucking up to Bob?

That wasn't sucking up to Bob; it was criticising Andrew.

> Why is he allowed to post
> whatever trash he wants, yet you come running to his rescue?
> Look at Andrew's effort as a tongue in cheek or even polite way of
> saying "Bob stop posting trash".
>
> And I'm sure Andrew isn't the only one wanting to express that
> sentiment.

Where did you get the idea that "allowed" has anything to do with usenet? People post whatever they want. There are no crossing guards. If you don't like that fact, you might want to seek out a moderated forum.

And consider:

George, why are you sucking up to Andrew? Why is he allowed to post whatever trash he wants, yet you come running to his rescue? Look at Bob's efforts as an educated or even rude way of saying "Andrew stop posting trash." And I'm sure Bob isn't the only one wanting to express that sentiment.

See how it works?

> > Try it:
> >
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > >
> > > OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
> > > means an example of a computational model. Idiot. Further, it is a
> > > computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
> > > constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
> > > state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
> > > for what seemed expedient at the time.
> >
> > becomes:
> >
> > > OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
> > > means an example of a computational model. Further, it is a
> > > computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
> > > constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
> > > state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
> > > for what seemed expedient at the time.
> >
> > Not all that hard, really. And you're left with something that is
> > actually quite well written, and quite cogent.
>
> And this you provide as a good example of quality content.

Love Bob or hate him, "OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one means an example of a computational model" is an awesome sentence.

> That's the
> worst definition of OOP I've ever seen "Large unpredictable state
> machines", yeah right.

Okay, so is "yeah right" supposed to be an example of a substantive refutation? Why don't you look of the definition of "state machine" and tell me what aspect of is not met by an object.

> These newsgroups were way more polite and informative before you guys
> showed up so don't gloat about any "well written, cogent" content. It's
> just filthy trash!

You're right; I could never aspire to the degree of politeness and informativeness that you embody.

Marshall Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 06:45:06 CEST