Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

From: David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <6339c552-f917-4096-a1fb-dd2772516742_at_k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>



On Mar 3, 7:36 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:50:47 -0800 (PST), David BL
>
> <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >On Feb 25, 6:51 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>
> >> >If you are not convinced that's not my problem. I've already hinted at
> >> >what my counterargument for the specific issue under discussion would
> >> >be. If you want to debate that, don't let me stop you.
>
> >> Oooh! You gave a hint! How thoughtful. </sarcasm>
>
> >Brevity's hardly a sin so what's really behind the </sarcasm>? To be
> >frank I'm finding it hard to think of anything that does you credit.
>
> Note how I did not explicitly state what was behind my post. You
> did not like it, did you? Well, I feel the same about your hint.
>
> Please state your argument instead of making cute remarks about
> having given a hint. This is a newsgroup where we discuss database
> theory, not a crime scene investigation.

Firstly you have me confused with someone else. Secondly this is a news group after all and it's very common for posters to be terse - e.g. to reference an idea or point of view in the community or described in the literature. Thirdly Jan provided references to papers. Fourthly I thought Jan's hint made it pretty clear what he meant anyway.

It's quite reasonable to ask a poster to elaborate. What I don't understand is your sarcasm, and I was asking you to elaborate on that (that's fair isn't it?).

I would have thought that if you were actually interested in more detail you would choose a different tact than to be offensive (which invariably has the opposite outcome). It suggests your motives are far from sincere. Received on Tue Mar 02 2010 - 20:03:08 CST

Original text of this message