Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Date: 28 May 2007 12:01:57 -0700
Message-ID: <1180378917.233136.10740_at_p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
On 28 mai, 20:38, Eric <e..._at_deptj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Snipped]
Here...
--> 1 Defining keys according to human perception
> >Is there a point to that response ? Please apply # 6 in the list I
> >provided.
>
> What list? Where? If you want me to obey a rule you could at least
> quote it.
Sorry about this. I did not mean to sound offensive so please accept
my apologies. I was refering to the list which is also a conclusion
of the initial comments on CELKO key taxonomy...(which triggered this
debate which led to mensa or whatever that is )
--> 2 Considering there are several realities (external/internal -
based on human perception)
--> 3 Believing in magic
--> 4 Believing that a key is physical concept
--> 5 Defining keys in function of lazy people.
--> 6 Making sense out of CELKO writing and *taxonomies*
> What point do you want there to be? I commented on what was said. If
> you want to argue about my comment, go ahead. If you are suggesting I
> shouldn't have made it at all, see above.
No. I agree mostly with what you wrote. I stand by most people's
already established opinions that engaging Celko is simply a waste of
time (see initial title for thread). As getting carried away into
discussion to deny nonsense is quite easy, it may also prove tricky to
get out. Was just a friendly advice. ;)
Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 21:01:57 CEST