The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-OrientedProgramming)
in [OOP]
|
Prev: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)
Next: looking for design patterns of interacting state machine
From: Kreeg on 9 Feb 2007 08:54 To be fair, T puts out an impressive volume of nonsense in a lot of different threads. You can't reasonably expect him to keep track of the nonsense that he said in the past in addition to the nonsense that he's currently saying. I mean, come on! ;-) ggroups(a)bigfoot.com wrote: > 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) : *SNIP* > > 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: Kreeg on 16 Feb 2007 08:44 Actually (according to Wikipedia, at least ;-) ), it looks like a tree is a hierarchy, but a hierarchy is not a tree. DAG and tree are both subclasses, if you will, of hierarchy. To borrow a comparison from elementary school math : hierachy is to rectangle, as tree is to square. Most of the time people (myself included) equate them with the same thing, though. topmind wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:46 pm, "S Perryman" <a...(a)a.net> wrote: >> "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1171563102.133207.152240(a)l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> S Perryman wrote: >>>> You apparently have some serious mental defect. >>>> To spell it out to you (in 'according to Google' speak) ... >>>> #1. The OP did *NOT USE the terms "tree" , "classification tree" or *any >>>> other text with the word tree in it (the *1st message in the entire topic >>>> thread. >>> Here is a copy of the first message of the topic (as google shows it): ****SNIP***** >>> multiple times: >>> "hierarchical categories by topic" >>> "hierarchical categories by topic" >>> "hierarchical categories by topic" >>> "hierarchical categories by topic" >> ROTFLMAO !!! :-) >> >> http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=hierarchy >> >> What, no mention of the word "tree" !!?? >> You obviously haven't broken your shovel yet, have you. > > Are you really that stupid? "hierarchy" and tree are the same goddam > thing!!!! > > Jeeeeez! Get some f8cking education. > >> Deluded yourself as to what someone explicitly wrote in a Usenet posting. >> And now you have deluded yourself as to the meaning of a word in >> the English language. >> >> So : >> >> 1. As Usenet goes, you are still a cowardly, disingenuous liar. >> 2.IMHO you need to seek medical assistance regarding the delusions you >> appear to have. >> >> IMHO many on comp.object could accept 2 being (most/all of) the reason >> for 1 (and your normal obsessive rantings) . >> >> Regards, >> Steven Perryman > > -T- >
From: Jeff Brooks on 18 Feb 2007 22:35 > He cannot construct a cogent argument. He has deluded himself into what OO > is all about, and cannot debate on anything other than the delusion. And when > he cannot support his claims, he has to be repeatedly hounded into a corner > like vermin in order to get a retraction, or is disingenuous to the degree that he > will even re-invent the English language (hence my reference to the Cheshire Cat > from Alice in wonderland). - Steven Perryman "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." - http://www.google.com/search?q=define:lie I don't think that topmind lied. He honestly doesn't understand OO and his comments reflect that. Topmind's posts are an act of ignorance, not malice. Jeff Brooks
From: Jeff Brooks on 18 Feb 2007 22:38 Lol, I quoted the wrong text. I should have quoted this: > You a liar because you made a claim that the OP *explicitly mentioned > terms such as "tree" , "classification tree" * . They did not. You deluded > yourself, so you then went into your perennial delusion about OO : > OO = trees. - Steven Perryman Then my quote from google makes sense! Mental note to self, read message before posting next time!) Jeff Brooks Jeff Brooks wrote: >> He cannot construct a cogent argument. He has deluded himself into >> what OO >> is all about, and cannot debate on anything other than the delusion. >> And when >> he cannot support his claims, he has to be repeatedly hounded into a >> corner >> like vermin in order to get a retraction, or is disingenuous to the >> degree that he >> will even re-invent the English language (hence my reference to the >> Cheshire Cat >> from Alice in wonderland). > - Steven Perryman > > "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be > false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." > - http://www.google.com/search?q=define:lie > > I don't think that topmind lied. He honestly doesn't understand OO and > his comments reflect that. > > Topmind's posts are an act of ignorance, not malice. > > Jeff Brooks
From: Bjorn Reese on 19 Feb 2007 13:14
topmind wrote: > I've never seen "hierarchy" used to talk about anything other than > trees, and m-w.com does not seem to describe any non-tree "hierarchy". > It appears to have a religious origin, not a mathematical one, and > thus is not well-suited for technical decisions anyhow. Quote from http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm "Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards." -- mail1dotstofanetdotdk |