Re: Generating fake databases

Roy

1. Evidently you have forgotten the chronology of your actions, and failed relate the consequences, back to them

> On Oct 14, 2:48 am, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:

> I fear you may be somewhat dazzled by the clarity of your own vision of
> the solution.

You set the tone. Deal with it.

You can dish it out, but you can't swallow it. If you can't swallow it, don't dish it out.

Change the tone, you may get different consequences.

2.

> > [...] I still have no idea what that means [...].
> > [...] I do not think it is worth researching.
>
> So which is it?  You don't know what I mean, or you do know what I mean
> and it isn't worth researching?

Evidently you are unaware that some people have enough brains to speculate on subjects *within* their field, that they may not be *specialist* in, we do not need your permission.

Also, you have completely missed the point (that I detailed) that the subject for which you seek papers, now that we know a tiny bit about what it is, is so pathetic, that no self-respecting educated adult would write a paper on it, excepting (as detailed) MS research fellows, but they enjoy neither respect nor education.

Since you can only contemplate binary logic; you have been unable to comprehend the whole post, and instead, you excise and inspect single statements from it, let me spell it out for you. I note that the body of my post fleshes out, and is consistent with, the second advice, so go with that. To be clear, I have no idea what your *specific* requirement is, but the *general* subject identified thus far, is not worth researching *or* writing a paper on. Please do not break that last sentence up, it will confuse you.

> I enjoy seeing batty ideas pierced with brilliantly economical
> arguments as much as the next denizen of c.d.t.  There are several
> masters of that sport hanging out here.  You show eagerness though
> no particular skill.  Observe the masters and learn.  

If, and when, you demonstrate such behaviour, then I will treat such advice seriously. Until then, since you do not practice what you preach, you are a hypocrite, which identifies the exact level of your credibility. I couldn't care less what hypocrites think of me, or what in-credible opinions they post.

I am not here to show off my skill (answering the question required no technical skill, only reining in my laughter), or to gain acceptance on a public forum (I get enough acknowledgement from my customers and peers, thank you), or to find out about what the undocumented requirements for acceptance are, or to take notice of your opinion of any of the above, particularly given your demonstrated (a) credibility and (b) technical skill. I am here to participate in a community.

Evidently you do not recognise either the batty idea, even after it is pointed out to you, or the piercing of it. I will not be writing a paper on the subject.

You have failed to notice that the "masters" did not bother to respond to your question, which was devoid of theoretical substance. I bothered to, after a couple of days. You had to explain to us, how you positioned the question, so as to give it a theoretical element. That is consistent with the demonstrated hypocrisy. There is nothing in your question that is related to c.d.t; and you have posed a nonspecific  question which cannot be satisfied; you have rejected all responses, nothing is good enough. Now you can prove, in your own cranial space, that c.d.t can't answer questions. Your game is transparent. Received on Sat Oct 15 2011 - 06:31:43 CEST