Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)

On 28 May 2007 12:01:57 -0700, Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 28 mai, 20:38, Eric <e..._at_deptj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[Snipped]
>> >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 )
>
>Here...
>
>--> 1 Defining keys according to human perception
>--> 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. ;)
>

Is OK - didn't mean to sound _that_ offended. Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 21:32:28 CEST