Re: Objects and Relations
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:52:05 GMT
Message-ID: <FdSyh.4309$R71.63951_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> "David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote: >
>>On Feb 9, 2:21 am, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm amazed how Bob goes to such trouble to say nothing at all. It is
>>>
>>> That fits you very well. I thought you might have value to
>>>contribute to this newsgroup, but it appears you simply "raise
>>>issues".
>>
>>My point was that Bob is like a spectator at a sports match who likes
>>to hurl the occasional insult at the opposing team with little
>>intention in taking part.
I certainly have no intention of wasting my time debunking every nonsensical word from every ignorant amateur who shows up here with pretensions to educate the educated. Can you imagine Michael Jordan wasting his time in a one-on-one against some short, fat, couch potato just because the slob proclaims himself a basketball player?
On numerous occasions he writes a long
>>winded post (rather like the one I'm writing now) with no technical
>>content.
Long winded? Now, I am hurt. In the post the self-aggrandizing ignorant rants against, I presented an hypothesis and a falsifiable experiment. It took me all of 4 sentences to do so.
I gave short actionable instructions with reasonable expectation to benefit the person I addressed. The self-aggrandizing ignorant wrote a ream more in the same thread without contributing anything and with no reasonable expectation to benefit anyone except himself. After all, Jim even contributed his own amusement.
> No. Bob writes a lot of technical content. He is also a > gatekeeper of sorts. Gatekeeper posts are much more noticeable. > >
>>Can you explain why you think I simply "raise issues"?
>
> Yes. "Discussion" follows and seems to go approximately nowhere.
I would say, instead, he invents non-issues. Received on Fri Feb 09 2007 - 04:52:05 CET