Re: Objects and Relations
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:50:55 GMT
Message-ID: <3XhCh.8267$R71.127455_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 19:01, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18 fév, 19:38, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I have learnt a lot from these boards. Some have taught me theory,
>>>some the ability to express ideas more concisely. Even from others I
>>>often argue with (such as Dawn) I have learnt common views in business
>>>that one must expect to encounter, how difficult terminology can be to
>>>express with clarity, and the care one must take in making
>>>arguements.
>>>>From yourself however, Cimode, I have learnt nothing so far. Nada.
>>
>>Has it crossed your mind that we did not get a chance to? And if you
>>learned anything here? what is it exactly that you would not have
>>better learned by reading a book from DATE or Fabian PASCAL? Out
>>from what is written on these books, could you establish a list of
>>items learnt here NOT containing the following words *OO is crap RM
>>good*, *In this world there are cranks and there are .....blabla *
>>meaningless crap... Does the world *sterile* thinking evoke anything?
>>
>>
>>>>They are the first to accuse people of intellectual dishonnesty when
>>>>they display tons of it at every corner...How can such incoherence not
>>>>hurt RM?
>>
>>>Cimode, I really feel you have to get out there more. There is a
>>>definite lack of social awareness at work, which I sincerely hope you
>>>can remedy over time.
>>
>>I assure you I am fine but thanks for worrying...(I appreciate the
>>thought ;))
>>
>>
>>>Your claims of "Fraud this", "Fraud that",
>>>"Marshall is a selfish hypocrit" (!?), etc, etc, ad infinitum, with
>>>misquotes and changes of context... well it come across to a neutral
>>>reader as rather embarrassing. J.
>>
>>I am sorry for your *neutrality* but I think many people here have a
>>*right* to respond to people who basically treat people like masterdam
>>who contradict them as *crank*, *intellectually dishonnest* and all
>>other *insults*. I believe on the contrary that not only they
>>should get a response but their incoherences should be exposed so that
>>an outside participator can make up his mind...
> Pointing out mistakes is fine. We all make mistakes. I'm just trying > to tell you how /your/ posts comes across imo. Its just a comment, > take it or leave it. But perpetuating a chain of insults does seem a > bit silly to me. > >
>>By their attitude,
>>these people hurt the little chances RM has to implemented some day,
>>burried under tons of stereotypical attitudes associated with RM
>>proponents...
Humans tend toward laziness and complacency. Something has to shock them from their revery before they act. Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 14:50:55 CET