Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> >> >As far as I can see his worst crime is that he overestimates his
>> >> >expertise in certain areas and is somewhat reluctant in admitting that
>> >> >other points of view might also be valid. Certain newsgroups would
>> >> >become very empty if you would remove all participants with that
>> >> >attitude. ;-)
>> >> True, but that sounds like a good idea.
>How practical...Frauds that get exposed don't won't people who expose
>them...
>That's called censorship...

     It would be nice if they removed themselves. Showing some self-control and not posting when one does not know is not censorship.

>> >As ever it seems to be just a slight ambiguity in definition, combined
>> >with a lot of bluster like cimode's name calling. I mean clearly
>> >neither jan nor vc are 'idiots' - far, far from it, so why there is a
>> >need to post such things I have no idea. I for one, am all for more
>> >decorum. Posters have enough trouble communicating as it is.
>I have to admit that online communication does not help. You an Jan
>Hidders still remain idiots.

     You are very quick to trot out that so-called explanation.

>> Exactly. There are many threads that I might well have been able
>> to follow were there a bit more information. A polite question in the
>> middle of such boorishness does not get too far.
>Oh poor boy...What pollutes this board overall is the incredible amount
>of stupidity, misinformation and ignorance, people like you and Jan
>hidders are pouring in it. vc has made clear points that only you and
>Jan Hidders have not understood right away...

     This newsgroup is for discussion of theory. Why are complaining about that? If someone does not understand right away, well, there is a lot of material. If this were being discussed in an academic setting -- a class, say -- it would be quite unremarkable if not everyone in the class understood the idea right away.

>It has taken tons of patience of his to establish that you were not
>talking about the same concepts. The only difference is that he
>immediately understood what you were talking but reciprocity was not
>true...To make it brief, he did get it and you did not ..What a
>surprise..Moron...

     Or maybe, it is just that he agreed with you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.