Re: How to normalize this?

Op zaterdag 9 februari 2013 01:39:40 UTC+1 schreef derek.a..._at_gmail.com het volgende:
> On Saturday, 9 February 2013 07:33:27 UTC+11, hugoko..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Does anyone know a better way to normalize this set of FDs?
>
>
>
> Of course. The solution is simple.

Great. So post it. Given the amount of attributes and FDs, just posting it would probably have been less effort than writing the message you did.

Or don't post it, if you relish claiming to be far superior without bothering to prove it. But don't be surprised if I stop taking you seriously if all you do is claim to know something and then fail to deliver.

> I don't know why I bother, but I will give you one more chance. I am happy to explain things to someone who is genuinely seeking undestanding; I am not happy to argue with someone who is fixed in their understanding.
>
>
>
> In order to ensure that, in consideration of your behaviour in the past, I will lay down some ground rules for your interaction with me. If you do any of the following, I will stop reading your posts:
>
> • lie
>
> • contradict yourself or behave hypocritically (doing exactly what you have railed against)
>
> • repeat the wrong thing, after what you have written has been identified as the wrong thing
>
> • demonstrate an inability to think logically.

I have never knowingly done any of the above. Nor do I plan to.

> • demonstrate that you are not genuinely trying to learn (the question posed implies that (a) you do not know and (b) you want to learn, but your past behaviour demonstrated an intention that you were not genuine, you were evidently here for the engagement, and fixed on your beliefs). if you are unteachable, the exercise is a waste of time.
>
> (Remember, you posted the question, which means you do not know the answer.)

I posted the question, and the best answer I could find myself. I have considered several other answers before, then carefully tried to find flaws in them. And rejected them. I don't like my final answer either, which is why I posted. But I *will* give any answer I get here the same treatment I gave to my own attempts - try to shoot holes in them as hard as I can. If I can't find any problems, I'll thank you and I'll have learned. If I do see problems, I'll tell you, and we'll both have learned.

Me asking does not mean I should take replies I get, from you or from anyone else, as gospel. If that's what you want me to do, then please don't reply.

> • Respond to my explanatory posts in less than 24 hours. (I spend a lot of time putting them together. You need to treat that with respect, and think about them carefully, re-read them several times if necessary, before responding. That will indicate that you are genuinely learning. Knee-jerk reactions will demonstrate that you are doing so from your existing set of beliefs and understandings (which by definition means that you will remain in your present state of lack of knowledge; that you are not open to learning anything).

As I told you in my email, I do not get notifications of new posts in this topic, and I stopped regularly visiting usenet groups a long time ago. If you had sent me a heads up that you responded (as you did with your earlier response), I would have seen it sooner.

> I need a one-line response from you that explicitly accepts or rejects this. If you accept, I will answer your question.

Since your post is a list of conditions that will make you stop reading my posts, there is nothing for me to accept or reject. I have no way to force you to read or not read my posts, that's entirely your call.

But I would very much appreciate if someone could post a reply to my question here. And if you are that someone, than I also suggest that we keep the issues we have in that other topic seperate from this topic.

Cheers,
Hugo Received on Sat Feb 09 2013 - 01:56:58 CET