Re: 2 GB myth

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:45:39 +1100
Message-ID: <41aad392$0$9113$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Igor Laletin wrote:
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41a8cec8$0$20859$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>

>>Judgementalism is not, in any case, the problem. Saying "Oh! I didn't 
>>think you'd have any real clients" is not being judgemental.

>
>
> Don't care how real your clients are and didn't say they're unreal.

>>It's trying to get your own back on someone who pointed out a technical deficiency 
>>in a post you made.

>
>
> You started with agruing with something I didn't say.

Incorrect. I pointed out that saying 'recovery is not affected by the number of disk files, especially with today's hardware' misses the point entirely. And is in any case not true when >1 file needs restoring.

That's the bit you don't like me pointing out. What you wrote was wrong, misleading, potentially harmful, and technically incorrect.

> Later you
> exploded in your usual way about something I said

Your being your usual, imprecise, self. I didn't explode. Strangely, even with Daniel, I don't explode. Reading your nonsense, I remain calm throughout. Otherwise, I couldn't construct the sentences needed to debunk your sillinesses.

That you don't like the sentences' content, and deem them 'explosive', means merely that you are reading more into them that is actually there.

> and it wasn't your
> experience.
> Now you've calmed down and preaching.

I was actually addressing issues someone else entirely had raised. But whatever: you read whatever you like into them.

> All in all not a bad
> evolution. Keep it up.

I'll do my best. Try not to write harmful, misleading, technically inept rubbish in the meantime, there's a good chap.

HJR
>
> Igor
>
>

>>Regards
>>HJR Received on Mon Nov 29 2004 - 01:45:39 CST