Prev: Relational-to-OOP Tax
Next: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-OrientedProgramming)
From: ggroups on 9 Feb 2007 03:45
On Feb 8, 8:49 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote:

> ggro...(a)bigfoot.com wrote:

>> The first thing I will put on record is your convenient omission of
>> your claim
>> about what the OP wrote. It is therefore fair IMHO to assume that the
> > following is true (as I stated) :

>> you started your usual deluded tree rubbish
>> - the OP responded to inform you they are talking about graphs
>> - you made a claim about what the OP wrote, which is shown to be untrue

> I did NOT bring up hierarchies. The opening posting brought it up.
> Thus, your implication that I "saw" hierarchies were none were
> described nor mentioned is wrong.

I will summarise for posterity (as google etc have the details on
every posting
made for this thread) :

1. You started your usual deluded rants about trees.

2. The OP told you the following :

"DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."

IOW, he is thinking about *graph* hierarchies (hence the reference to
DAGs).

3. I posted to inform the OP that 1 is typical form for you.
4. You then posted claiming the following :

"The original author was not necessarily talking about OO, but
classification trees. I did not imply tree/hierarchy, it was
EXPLICITLY stated by the author of the message."

5. I reposted the OPs original posting, and the text did not contain
the words
"tree" , "classification tree" at all. For which you have been offered
the
opportunity to reply.

6. Rather than respond to 5, you now make the following claim :

"I did NOT bring up hierarchies. The opening posting brought it up.
Thus, your implication that I "saw" hierarchies were none were
described nor mentioned is wrong."


So 1 is your usual deluded ranting.
2 and 3 made it clear the OP is not talking about trees.
You made a claim in 4 which was shown untrue by 5. Therefore you are a
*liar* .

Rather than face up to the facts of 4/5, you attempt to reword 4 as
6, and claim
that I have implied things based on that. As you did not originally
write 6, I
cannot have stated or implied anything relating to something that was
not actually
written.

So as far as Usenet goes, you display the traits of a disingenuous,
cowardly liar.

It is bad enough that you are unable to construct a succinct cogent
debate to
argue your point (which actually has some merit) . But to expect
comp.object to
endure both that and your unsavoury traits is *not on* .


Regards,
Steven Perryman

From: Nick Malik [Microsoft] on 9 Feb 2007 11:15
Steve,

I know you didn't ask for my advice. Please indulge me:
Your time and talent is being wasted by arguing with T. It's not worth it.
You won't convince him, and he won't convince anyone else.

Of course, how you use your time is up to you. I just think the OP and the
rest of the folks who come to this board looking for help are better served
if we don't feed the troll.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--


From: topmind on 9 Feb 2007 16:12
On Feb 9, 8:15 am, "Nick Malik [Microsoft]"
<nickma...(a)hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I know you didn't ask for my advice. Please indulge me:
> Your time and talent is being wasted by arguing with T. It's not worth it.
> You won't convince him, and he won't convince anyone else.


You have no evidence, that's why. I don't claim there is evidence that
relational etc. is objectively better than OO because I agree it may
all be subjective. But most OOer's have not signed on to that. They
*think* OO is objectively better, but do not present real proof
because they think it is a given.

The OO betterment proof does not exist with or without me. I could get
hit by a bus, and there would still be no OO evidence for biz apps.

The guy in the following link at least admits there is no proof and
more or less says, "I just like it":

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/893

(Although he does claim it better models the real world, that has not
been shown either, nor is a universal claim among OO proponents.)

You people are not mature enough to realize when something is a
subjective preference. You think that everybody SHOULD think like you
and like what you like. We'll, they don't and won't.

>
> Of course, how you use your time is up to you. I just think the OP and the
> rest of the folks who come to this board looking for help are better served
> if we don't feed the troll.

OOP is a troll on the software industry. They duped the world thru
shape and animal examples.

>
> --
> --- Nick Malik [Microsoft]

-T-

From: S Perryman on 15 Feb 2007 02:51
"Kreeg" <kreeg(a)sentdotcom.nospam> wrote in message
news:eqnv9m$u02$1(a)aioe.org...

> Okay, if I understood the thread thus far, here's the summary :

> - OP makes his comments.
> - topmind says "I don't like trees"

No.
An attempt was made to hijack the thread with a usual rant about trees.

#1 I informed the OP this was the case.


> - OP says "I didn't mean trees", when he said :
> "DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."

#2 This was the separate reply that the OP made regarding the ranting.

Then we got ...

#3 Topmind claiming that #1 was not on, because the OP had *explicitly
mentioned trees* . On examining the OP post, no such thing.


> - topmind *should* have said "Oh. Okay then."
> - T and Steve both got really pissy with each other.

No (legend follows to help the reader : L = lie, C = coward, D =
disingenuous) ...
Steve gets wicked because topmind posted :

#3 (L)
Having been told #3, did not correct the point (C) .
Then spent the subsequent posts (file all under D) claiming thing such as :

- he meant something he didn't write, and I was wrong to interpret
the something he didn't write as something he did write

- he didn't see some particular posting from the OP


As I stated in the beginning of this sub-thread, this individual thinks he
is
a law unto himself about what he can/cannot write +/- be accountable
for, and has been doing it consistently over the years (making claims he
cannot support, being forced to retract claims only after being hounded
into a corner etc.

This time is rather different.


Regards,
Steven Perryman


From: topmind on 15 Feb 2007 11:33

S Perryman wrote:
> "Kreeg" <kreeg(a)sentdotcom.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eqnv9m$u02$1(a)aioe.org...
>
> > Okay, if I understood the thread thus far, here's the summary :
>
> > - OP makes his comments.
> > - topmind says "I don't like trees"
>
> No.
> An attempt was made to hijack the thread with a usual rant about trees.


According to Google, my "tree rant" reply is the *2nd* message in the
entire topic thread. Thus, unless the tree correction was in the first
message (I don't see it), I COULD NOT have seen the correction at the
time of the second reply. It did not exist yet (unless Google time-
stamped it different than your newsreader, which has not been
claimed). Your witchhunt time-line is illogical, just like your OO
evidence.


>
> #1 I informed the OP this was the case.
>
>
> > - OP says "I didn't mean trees", when he said :
> > "DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."
>
> #2 This was the separate reply that the OP made regarding the ranting.
>
> Then we got ...
>
> #3 Topmind claiming that #1 was not on, because the OP had *explicitly
> mentioned trees* . On examining the OP post, no such thing.
>
>
> > - topmind *should* have said "Oh. Okay then."
> > - T and Steve both got really pissy with each other.
>
> No (legend follows to help the reader : L = lie, C = coward, D =
> disingenuous) ...
> Steve gets wicked because topmind posted :
>
> #3 (L)
> Having been told #3, did not correct the point (C) .
> Then spent the subsequent posts (file all under D) claiming thing such as :
>
> - he meant something he didn't write, and I was wrong to interpret
> the something he didn't write as something he did write
>
> - he didn't see some particular posting from the OP
>
>
> As I stated in the beginning of this sub-thread, this individual thinks he
> is
> a law unto himself about what he can/cannot write +/- be accountable
> for, and has been doing it consistently over the years (making claims he
> cannot support, being forced to retract claims only after being hounded
> into a corner etc.
>
> This time is rather different.
>
>
> Regards,
> Steven Perryman

-T-
oop.ismad.com

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Relational-to-OOP Tax
Next: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-OrientedProgramming)