Re: Concurrency in an RDB
Date: 21 Dec 2006 16:16:32 -0800
Message-ID: <1166746592.368407.143860_at_i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
David wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 3:13 pm, monaro..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >>Marshall wrote:
> > ..
> > >>Is English your second language?
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow, an insult in which you imply that I don't speak
> > > English very well. Isn't *that* original, and oh so relevant?
> > > ...
> >
> > Hey Marshall, your anglais is satisfactaire. it's standard technique
> > for newsgroup/"successful" hand-wavers to challenge an irrelevant aspect
> > of the questioner's manner, ie., to try to change the subject.
>
> I have an interest in carefully analysing why people say what they
> say...
>
> Here are some possible motivations for why Dan posed that question...
>
> 1. Dan actually believes English is not Marshall's primary language,
> and the question was to be taken literally
>
> 2. Dan believes Marshall can speak English well, but thinks some of
> the NG readers are naive enough to read his question literally. This
> is a ploy to help bolster his argument by attacking Marshall's
> intelligence - perhaps because Dan thinks his argument isn't able to
> stand up on its own.
>
> 3. Dan used it as a literary device, as both an insult and to
> underscore what he regards as a discrepancy in Marshall's response.
>
> It seems to me that the third option is closest to the truth.
>
> You claim that the second option is in fact true. Do you stand by that
> claim, or do you in fact agree with me that the third option is closest
> and you are yourself using the analogous tactic that you "accuse" Dan
> of?
> >
> David
Or,
4) (to save Bob the time end effort) Dan is a self-aggrandizing ignorant idiot.
In retrospect, if you interpret Marshal's "could" as "may" or "might want to" then his post reads well. I found Marshal's "could build" to be contrary to David's "have already built", which was removed from the partial quote included in Marshal's post.
I was a little reactionary, for which I apologise.
Dan Received on Fri Dec 22 2006 - 01:16:32 CET