Re: Objects and Relations
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:50:00 GMT
Message-ID: <c4Pvh.156$R71.2692_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
>
> So what are the clear disadvantages? (As opposed to things that
> appear to you to be disadvantages.)
>
>
>
>
>
> You just admitted the point. Marshall just caught onto it more
> quickly than you did.
>
> Being ignorant is not a crime. Being ignorant and disrespecting
> the field from which you are requesting help is not either, but maybe,
> it should be.
>
> inadequate. It is quite another to prove it.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:50:00 GMT
Message-ID: <c4Pvh.156$R71.2692_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
> "David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 30, 6:33 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Jan 29, 9:41 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Jan 30, 2:01 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>"David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> >>>>>[snip] >>> >>>>>>These are clear disadvantages of RM here. Are there any advantages? >>> >>>>> Oh, come on! Surely you can troll better than that? >>> >>>>Do you realise I'm only talking about strings?>
>
> Yes. So?
>
>>>>I'm not trolling. I'm quite serious. >>> >>>I believe that you believe what you're saying, so in some narrow >>>sense you're not a troll. But you're still a troll in the broader >>>sense, >>>in that you're an outsider who doesn't exhibit much mastery of the >>>RM, pops in with no prior posting history, and speaks of >>>"clear disadvantages" without any signs of having done any actual >>>analysis. >> >>I'm not sure why you say I made the claims with no underlying basis.
>
>
> So what are the clear disadvantages? (As opposed to things that
> appear to you to be disadvantages.)
>
>
>>On the contrary I outlined my reasons for making the claim. If my>
>
> ^^^^^
>>reasoning was wrong through inexperience with RM then fair enough.> was "no analysis" is quite wrong.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >But saying there
>
>>Implying I'm arrogant for making claims without sufficient experience>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>or credentials also comes across as a little arrogant on your part.
>
>
> You just admitted the point. Marshall just caught onto it more
> quickly than you did.
>
> Being ignorant is not a crime. Being ignorant and disrespecting
> the field from which you are requesting help is not either, but maybe,
> it should be.
>
>>Anyway I'm more interested in engaging in an objective discussion. >>I'm quite happy to defend (and if necessary retract) my statements >>through criticism.honesty, to advance understanding--one's own and/or other's. In the case of an unreasonably uneducated person who lacks intellectual honesty, to provoke someone else into providing a free education.
>
> Why make statements that you have to retract?
In the case of a reasonably educated person who has intellectual
I find the latter very manipulative and frankly rude.
> Stating that you can not see how one would do something in an
> area and asking for help is much better than stating that the area is
> inadequate. After all, you do not know that, do you?
>
>
>>>If Gene dismisses you out of hand, I cannot fault him.> your claims lies with you. It is easy to claim that the RM is
>
> I did not quite do that, but the responsibility for the proof of
> inadequate. It is quite another to prove it.
Proof by assumption seems to pass in some circles. Is it any surprize that one who comes from such a circle assumes it passes everywhere? Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 22:50:00 CET