Re: some information about anchor modeling

On 2012-12-09, vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dana srijeda, 5. prosinca 2012. 22:41:56 UTC+1, korisnik Eric napisao je:
>> On 2012-12-05, vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-29, Eric <eric_at_deptj.eu> wrote:
>>> Of course, if you think that my examples are not correct, please post
>>> it. But please be specific. So, please specify a concrete my example
>>> which is not correct, and give an explanation. Given that your comments
>>> were not specific, I can not accept them seriously.
>>
>> It has taken me this long to make any sense out of your examples at all,
>> and anyway picking on them individually is pointless when you seem to
>> have so many more fundamental confusions. Also, as I said above, your
>> examples do not explain why it is surrogates specifically that are the
>> problem.
>
>
> Given that your comments were not specific, I can not accept them
> seriously.

So he says "I won't argue with you except on my terms." The trouble is, his terms are only part of the things that are wrong (choose your own word there!)

> I'm sorry, but I will not read your posts any more. I have no time
> for such phraseology, at such a level.
> In fact, it seems to me, I need a parachute to get down to that
> level.

I think he needs a ladder rather than a parachute, to climb out of the hole he has dug for himself.

Anyway I suspect he is only posting here so that his words survive indefinitely in usenet archives.

<context snipped by Vladimir to mask what this bit was about>

>> One might as well claim that you cause car crashes by looking
>> out of a nearby window.

> I'm not sure, that one day, you will not initiate discussions about
> the construction of the space shuttle, on this user group.

Which doesn't make sense even if you know what the context was.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry