Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: 29 Jun 2006 12:55:47 -0700
> Marshall wrote:
> > George wrote:
> > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't recall claiming to have defined it. I described it's origin and
> > > > construction. Do you see what I mean by your stupidity preventing you
> > > > from comprehending relatively simple english? You are not smart enough
> > > > to understand what is actually written so you respond to something
> > > > entirely different instead.
> > >
> > > Now you "don't recall claiming to have defined it", here's what you
> > > said:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You say what you believe OO is and what it is not, that looks like an
> > > (informal) definition to me.
> > As near as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks that with
> > the above paragraph, Bob was attempting to define OO.
> > Certainly I don't think that, and it is also clear Bob doesn't
> > think that.
> > Marshall
I wrote :-
- Is that statement true of false?
- Is it a good descriptor?
- Should I be calling other people idiot on the strength of such a statement?
Marshall are you able to answer these questions? Of course anyone else should feel free to answer as well. Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 21:55:47 CEST