Re: To Bob Badour, sorry
Cimode
not to BB...If you called BB names he probably deserved it. Given the
level of insults and contempt he repetitively imposes to people it is
normal that he accepts an epidermic response natural.
And he is light years from representing a knowledgeable source of
knowledge about RM. If you want to know about RM, you must do a lot of
reading about RM first before recognizing knowledgeable audiences.
Somebody who actually believes that OO has nothing to bring to RM
implementation in total contradiction with the most knowledgeable
sources of knowledge about RM (PASCAL, CJ DATE) probably has no
credibility.
Rich Ryan wrote:
> I was mad and I called him names. My problem is that I try to hold the
> relational model in my head, and it's get hard once you beyond the simple
> stuff. So Bob, sorry.
>
> Rich
Roy Hann
news:1150380872....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You do not have to apologize to anybody about not knowing and certainly
> not to BB...If you called BB names he probably deserved it.
He wasn't apologizing for "not knowing". He was probably apologizing
because he felt he hadn't lived up to his own standards. If so, I rather
admire that.
Roy
Cimode
apologies...
He's simply apologizing because he had an epidermic response toward BB
way of handling people and has bad conscience about that.
His initial sentence is
<<I was mad and I called him names.>>
The reason he does apologizes is because BB and some people on this
board made him feel guilty about what he should *not* feel guilty
about...He should not feel guilty of not knowing something his
accusators don't have a clue about...
It's all crap...He should not apologize to anybody here and certainly
not to BB...
Cimode
because he felt he hadn't lived up to his own standards.. If so, I
rather admire that. >>
Good for you...Birds fly, fish swim...What a bunch of politically
correct crappola...
People should only apologize when justified. They should not apologize
when people supposed to be helpful to them are just there to make them
feel guilty and do not have the honesty to recognize it...
x
- You have a rare disease. You are too smart and consequently your brain
surface is too rough . For the pain to stop, I must perform surgery on you
to flatten it. How would you like it ?
- Smooth like the palm, only stop the pain! - s'il vous plait.
Two weeks after the procedure, the doctor ask him:
- How do you feel ?
- Fine. Thank you.
x
Cimode
Here is another one...
A guy goes to a market and finds a store where a poster indicates on
the door
"At this place we sell pills who makes you smarter"
He goes into the store, finds the salesman and asks him, doubtful:
> How can you state such bullshit!!!..Pills to make you smarter do not exists. You can become smarter through playing chess, through reading....
> the salesman answers: I am telling these pills will make you smarter
Intrigued the guy, gets closer to the pills and smells them. He says:
> It smells like shit!!! I can not believe these pills make you smarter
> without changing tone, the salesman repeats: I am telling these pills will make you smarter...
Then the guy says:
> OK I am going to prove you are wrong and that these pills won't make me any smarter...I will buy one from you
He buys a pill and swallows...Disgusted he screams
> Hey but this SHIT
> on the same tone the salesman says: see? I told you these pills would make you smarter...
Cimode
Here is another one...
A guy goes to a market and finds a store where a poster indicates on
the door
"At this place we sell pills who makes you smarter"
He goes into the store, finds the salesman and asks him, doubtful:
> How can you state such bullshit!!!..Pills to make you smarter do not exists. You can become smarter through playing chess, through reading....
> the salesman answers: I am telling these pills will make you smarter
Intrigued the guy, gets closer to the pills and smells them. He says:
> It smells like shit!!! I can not believe these pills make you smarter
> without changing tone, the salesman repeats: I am telling these pills will make you smarter...
Then the guy says:
> OK I am going to prove you are wrong and that these pills won't make me any smarter...I will buy one from you
He buys a pill and swallows...Disgusted he screams
- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
> Hey but this SHIT !!!
Roy Hann
> BS...No need to look for a complex patronizing interpretation of
> apologies...
>
> He's simply apologizing because he had an epidermic response toward BB
> way of handling people and has bad conscience about that.
Is that so very different from what I said? Different enough to dismiss
what I said as BS?
Roy
Cimode
totally different motivation on your part.
Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
not BB it's Rich Ryan...
When you use
Gene Wirchenko
>Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
>totally different motivation on your part.
I hear an axe grinding.
>Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
>guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
>the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
No, it is to recognise the OP's responsibility. Whether Mr.
Badour *also* has responsibility is another issue.
>You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
>and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
>
>Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
>said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
>not BB it's Rich Ryan...
Or there is no victim.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Cimode
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2006 10:19:49 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
> >totally different motivation on your part.
>
> I hear an axe grinding.
> >Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
> >guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
> >the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
>
> No, it is to recognise the OP's responsibility. Whether Mr.
> Badour *also* has responsibility is another issue.
Do not try separating what can not be separated.
Ignoring the bilateral aspect of communication is just delluding
yourself...
If you are infatuated with BB to the point you ignore the facts that he
provokes people more than he brings relevant argumentation ..that's
your problem not mine...
> >You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
> >and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
> >
> >Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
> >said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
> >not BB it's Rich Ryan...
>
> Or there is no victim.
Yeah and bird fly and fish swim...
Again some more crappola bar philosophy...
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
>
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2006 10:19:49 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
>> >totally different motivation on your part.
>>
>> I hear an axe grinding.
>I don't know what is *axe grinding*...
Pushing ones own preconceived point or bias.
>> >Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
>> >guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
>> >the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
>>
>> No, it is to recognise the OP's responsibility. Whether Mr.
>> Badour *also* has responsibility is another issue.
>Do not try separating what can not be separated.
>Ignoring the bilateral aspect of communication is just delluding
>yourself...
Please read my comment above. Note how I split things up. I
know about bilateral. Calling disagreement delusion is very rude.
>If you are infatuated with BB to the point you ignore the facts that he
>provokes people more than he brings relevant argumentation ..that's
>your problem not mine...
He brings a lot. I am tired of the KOTM-type postings, and I am
glad that Bob jumps on them.
>> >You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
>> >and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
>> >
>> >Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
>> >said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
>> >not BB it's Rich Ryan...
>>
>> Or there is no victim.
>Yeah and bird fly and fish swim...
>Again some more crappola bar philosophy...
You provoke. You do not bring relevant arguments.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Cimode
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2006 12:31:11 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> On 15 Jun 2006 10:19:49 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
> >> >totally different motivation on your part.
> >>
> >> I hear an axe grinding.
> >I don't know what is *axe grinding*...
>
> Pushing ones own preconceived point or bias.
no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> >> >Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
> >> >guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
> >> >the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
> >>
> >> No, it is to recognise the OP's responsibility. Whether Mr.
> >> Badour *also* has responsibility is another issue.
> >Do not try separating what can not be separated.
>
> >Ignoring the bilateral aspect of communication is just delluding
> >yourself...
>
> Please read my comment above. Note how I split things up. I
> know about bilateral. Calling disagreement delusion is very rude.
Distinguishing action from reaction does not mean you understand that
action provokes reaction...As you totally ignored the latest aspect you
are not disagreeing with me you are clearly delluding yourself...Don't
you find it rude?
> >If you are infatuated with BB to the point you ignore the facts that he
> >provokes people more than he brings relevant argumentation ..that's
> >your problem not mine...
>
> He brings a lot. I am tired of the KOTM-type postings, and I am
> glad that Bob jumps on them.
A lot of what?
A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a sterile
field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
and "you are saying nonsense"
I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive insults...
If you advocate "jumping on people" is the best way to handle KOTM
people, you are delluding yourself...
KOTM have a life...All you gain from *jumping on them* is either *rough
charm infatuation* or *disgust*...Neither infatuation nor *disgust*
help people exchange ideas in a productive..
> >> >You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
> >> >and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
> >> >
> >> >Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
> >> >said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
> >> >not BB it's Rich Ryan...
> >>
> >> Or there is no victim.
>
> >Yeah and bird fly and fish swim...
> >Again some more crappola bar philosophy...
>
> You provoke. You do not bring relevant arguments.
Stupid questions trigger stupid responses...
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Dan
Cimode wrote:
> You do not have to apologize to anybody about not knowing and certainly
> not to BB...If you called BB names he probably deserved it. Given the
> level of insults and contempt he repetitively imposes to people it is
> normal that he accepts an epidermic response natural.
>
> And he is light years from representing a knowledgeable source of
> knowledge about RM.
>
personal stuff and look deeper and there is a great deal of insight,
experience, and knowledge.
- Dan
<snip>
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
>no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
>infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
You are new to this group then. If you had been observing the
traffic for *years*, you would have seen repeats of kooks. I am glad
of Bob's efforts.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
> no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
>
Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough, in-depth analysis
of the motivations, views, thoughts and opinions of those who post in
this group. Not.
> A lot of what?
> A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a sterile
> field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> and "you are saying nonsense"
>
Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade. Sometimes admittedly
Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades and
the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
> I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive insults...
>
Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
> If you advocate "jumping on people" is the best way to handle KOTM
> people, you are delluding yourself...
> KOTM have a life...All you gain from *jumping on them* is either *rough
> charm infatuation* or *disgust*...Neither infatuation nor *disgust*
> help people exchange ideas in a productive..
>
It entirely depends on the method of engagement. If someone turns up
asking an honest question, looking for honest answers, they generally
get them. If someone turns up asking leading questions or pushing an
opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
Even though his phraseology may occasionally make me wince, I view many
of Bob's postings with a "he says these things so we don't have to"
outlook.
> Stupid questions trigger stupid responses...
>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I'll say that again :
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in the context of this whole stream of postings, I'll say it again
:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
> totally different motivation on your part.
>
> Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
> guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
> the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
>
> You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
> and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
>
> Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
> said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
> not BB it's Rich Ryan...
>
In the context of this thread at least, you're coming over as a fount
of boundless charm and grace yourself. Let's look at this post, shall
we ?
1. You have ascribed a motivation to someone else's post.
2. You have supplied your own interpretation of that post, based on
your own viewpoint and agenda.
3. You accuse the poster of attempting to induce guilt in Rich Ryan.
3. You accuse the poster of being a charming purveyor of "crapola".
4. You demand a course of action from the poster.
5. You order the poster to "stop the BS".
6. You ascribe victimhood to Rich Ryan.
Quite how all this squares with your apparent views about Bob Badour
isn't immediately apparent to me.
bba...@pei.sympatico.ca
> I was mad and I called him names. My problem is that I try to hold the
> relational model in my head, and it's get hard once you beyond the simple
> stuff. So Bob, sorry.
I have very thick skin so there's no apology needed for calling me
names. If it makes you feel any better, though, apology accepted.
x
> LOL...:)
> Here is another one...
How appropriate for this newsgroup ... :)
I knew it, but the pills were smelly fish heads or something like that.
Cimode
I don't give a damn about who's who and which role is assigned to
whom...All I notice is that several debates become sterile because of
close-mindedness of some people.
I certainly do not need *years* to observe that this attitude just
kills any free flowing of ideas which should be encouraged...Even if
it's crap...
To debunk kooks and VI, you must have authoritative and consensually
recognized mastering of the concepts you're trying to defend. From
reading his posts and positions, BB has not demontrated any of these...
He is no better than the people he pretends judging or educating...Even
worse because his attitude just makes this NG an empty thinktak store.
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Cimode
PERSONAL. Everything about bullying people even if they are VI is
PERSONAL...
If you think you can dissociate knowledge from objectivity you are
clearly delluding yourself...Bringing the wax of some ultimate quest
for knowledge without demonstrating open mindedness, mastering and
responsability toward others is pure crappola...
Unless you are infatuated by schoolboy rough edge charm....
x
"Tony D" <tonyis...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1150408938.1...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cimode wrote:
> > What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
> > no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> > infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> >
> Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough, in-depth analysis
> of the motivations, views, thoughts and opinions of those who post in
> this group. Not.
Huh !?!? A reaction or a retraction ?
> > A lot of what?
> > A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> > insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a sterile
> > field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> > and "you are saying nonsense"
> Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
And often not.
Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
Where I have heard that before ? ...
>Sometimes admittedly
> Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades and
> the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
> > I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> > understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive insults...
> Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
Or maybe not, 'cause he has not shown that.
0x2B | 0x2B that's the question.
> > If you advocate "jumping on people" is the best way to handle KOTM
> > people, you are delluding yourself...
> > KOTM have a life...All you gain from *jumping on them* is either *rough
> > charm infatuation* or *disgust*...Neither infatuation nor *disgust*
> > help people exchange ideas in a productive..
> It entirely depends on the method of engagement. If someone turns up
> asking an honest question, looking for honest answers, they generally
> get them.
If someone turns up it will be turned down.
http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
Garcon! Another turn!
>If someone turns up asking leading questions
What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
>or pushing an
> opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
Who's agenda ?
Cimode
It's such a shame your myelin layer is so thin...
Gene Wirchenko
>BS... Everything about insulting people and contemptuous attitude is
>PERSONAL. Everything about bullying people even if they are VI is
>PERSONAL...
>
>If you think you can dissociate knowledge from objectivity you are
>clearly delluding yourself...Bringing the wax of some ultimate quest
>for knowledge without demonstrating open mindedness, mastering and
>responsability toward others is pure crappola...
>
>Unless you are infatuated by schoolboy rough edge charm....
No, I do not mislabel your boorishness as charm, rough or
otherwise.
You sure seem to be offended by that apology!
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2006 13:35:16 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
>> >no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
>> >infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
>>
>> You are new to this group then. If you had been observing the
>> traffic for *years*, you would have seen repeats of kooks. I am glad
>> of Bob's efforts.
>Yes, I am new to this group which gives one advantage: objectivity.
Not necessarily. It also gives you a severe disadvantage: no
history.
>I don't give a damn about who's who and which role is assigned to
>whom...All I notice is that several debates become sterile because of
>close-mindedness of some people.
There is your subjectivity.
We are all biased. Some of us admit it, and some do not.
>I certainly do not need *years* to observe that this attitude just
>kills any free flowing of ideas which should be encouraged...Even if
>it's crap...
No, but if you judge based on a limited time period, and others
judge on a longer term, who is more likely to be more correct?
>To debunk kooks and VI, you must have authoritative and consensually
>recognized mastering of the concepts you're trying to defend. From
>reading his posts and positions, BB has not demontrated any of these...
I think he has. Some others have posted similarly.
>He is no better than the people he pretends judging or educating...Even
>worse because his attitude just makes this NG an empty thinktak store.
Maybe, you have not seen cdt when it has been drowned by kooks'
posts? Bob has done a large part of the saving of us from that.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Cimode
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2006 02:39:54 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >BS... Everything about insulting people and contemptuous attitude is
> >PERSONAL. Everything about bullying people even if they are VI is
> >PERSONAL...
> >
> >If you think you can dissociate knowledge from objectivity you are
> >clearly delluding yourself...Bringing the wax of some ultimate quest
> >for knowledge without demonstrating open mindedness, mastering and
> >responsability toward others is pure crappola...
> >
> >Unless you are infatuated by schoolboy rough edge charm....
>
> No, I do not mislabel your boorishness as charm, rough or
> otherwise.
I am not talking about myself...
> You sure seem to be offended by that apology!
I am offended by the hypocrisy demonstrated by some close minded morons
and deluded idiots who portray themselves as patronizing knowledgeable
people but reveal nothing else than to expect submission from their
peers...insulting them...When I point that out I am boorish?
What sickens me most is the fact they keep hiding behind noble ideas to
justify piggy attitudes...
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Cimode
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2006 02:34:50 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> On 15 Jun 2006 13:35:16 -0700, "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
> >> >no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> >> >infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> >>
> >> You are new to this group then. If you had been observing the
> >> traffic for *years*, you would have seen repeats of kooks. I am glad
> >> of Bob's efforts.
>
> >Yes, I am new to this group which gives one advantage: objectivity.
>
> Not necessarily. It also gives you a severe disadvantage: no
> history.
> >I don't give a damn about who's who and which role is assigned to
> >whom...All I notice is that several debates become sterile because of
> >close-mindedness of some people.
>
> There is your subjectivity.
No. My observation of simple facts. I have proved by subjecting clear
proofs that some people had totally incoherent behaviors, claiming one
thing doing something opposite...I brought obvious examples and
questions about RAM memory to a so called knowledgeable audience who
chose to ignore the issues diqualifying them as nonsense and insulting
me.
You are just too buried in BS to see it...
> We are all biased. Some of us admit it, and some do not.
>
> >I certainly do not need *years* to observe that this attitude just
> >kills any free flowing of ideas which should be encouraged...Even if
> >it's crap...
>
> No, but if you judge based on a limited time period, and others
> judge on a longer term, who is more likely to be more correct?
What a limited perception of truth!!!
If you base judgment solely on experience then expect you will be even
dummier when years goes by...
"Experience and Intellectual agility can replace fundamental knowledge
only to a limited extent"...
>From what I heard from some ignorants about mathematics and its
supposed application to RM just makes me think this NG is full of
crappola who really are delluding themselves...Even worse, they have a
contemptuous self congratulating attitude and hyppocrisy that sickens
me...Thanks god a few have had the spirit into bringing some fresh
ideas into this space...
> >To debunk kooks and VI, you must have authoritative and consensually
> >recognized mastering of the concepts you're trying to defend. From
> >reading his posts and positions, BB has not demontrated any of these...
>
> I think he has. Some others have posted similarly.
Who are the others? Infatuated idiots who don't have a clue of the
concepts they try to handle...
> >He is no better than the people he pretends judging or educating...Even
> >worse because his attitude just makes this NG an empty thinktak store.
>
> Maybe, you have not seen cdt when it has been drowned by kooks'
> posts? Bob has done a large part of the saving of us from that.
*saving us*? He is no fucking Christ!!!
I don't know why some people have this obssessional need to be saved!!
If you want to save yourself, open a book read and do your best to
understand...
...You talk about him as a sect guru leader..
This post indicates you truly are too infatuated with BB to be
objective...
BB and lots of people that follow him like dogs just lack fundamental
knowledge on what constitute the source of RM: Mathematics...They do
not know shit about what an Axiom is... what scientifical methodology
is but portray themselves as sources of information...That says a lot
about the current level of data management and science in this
NG...Instead of compensating their ignorance by hard work in learning
they prefer pre-packaged ways of dealing with opposite ideas..How
practical?
Explanation is so simple but you fail to see it...
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> No. My observation of simple facts. I have proved by subjecting clear
> proofs that some people had totally incoherent behaviors, claiming one
> thing doing something opposite...I brought obvious examples and
> questions about RAM memory to a so called knowledgeable audience who
> chose to ignore the issues diqualifying them as nonsense and insulting
> me.
>
At last ! The crux of the issue ! Bob (and/or others possibly) burned
you off when you brought along a question of possibly dubious
relevance, and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Boo hoo.
> You are just too buried in BS to see it...
>
Nope, no BS around here. Or was that metaphorical ? Rhetorical, maybe ?
> >From what I heard from some ignorants about mathematics and its
> supposed application to RM just makes me think this NG is full of
> crappola who really are delluding themselves...Even worse, they have a
> contemptuous self congratulating attitude and hyppocrisy that sickens
> me...Thanks god a few have had the spirit into bringing some fresh
> ideas into this space...
Another fine example of the kind of well reasoned, mannered,
sophisticated debate you'd like to introduce, presumably.
> Who are the others? Infatuated idiots who don't have a clue of the
> concepts they try to handle...
>
The toys are flying out of the pram now... FWIW, I'm not infatuated
with Bob. Hell, he hasn't even taken me out for dinner, never mind a
proper date or anything.
> *saving us*? He is no fucking Christ!!!
> I don't know why some people have this obssessional need to be saved!!
Where did you get "obsessional" from in what Gene wrote ? Maybe you
should spend more time concentrating on the text rather than trying to
read between the lines ?
> If you want to save yourself, open a book read and do your best to
> understand...
> ...You talk about him as a sect guru leader..
>
Never having been in a sect, I'll bow to your presumably better
experience and knowledge of such things.
> This post indicates you truly are too infatuated with BB to be
> objective...
>
> BB and lots of people that follow him like dogs just lack fundamental
> knowledge on what constitute the source of RM: Mathematics...They do
> not know shit about what an Axiom is... what scientifical methodology
> is but portray themselves as sources of information...That says a lot
> about the current level of data management and science in this
> NG...Instead of compensating their ignorance by hard work in learning
> they prefer pre-packaged ways of dealing with opposite ideas..How
> practical?
>
I think your spleen got the better of you there, because that paragraph
just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not that it had much
degeneration to do, mind.
Tony D
> I am not talking about myself...
>
Oh but you are. More than it appears you could ever possibly realise.
> I am offended by the hypocrisy demonstrated by some close minded morons
> and deluded idiots who portray themselves as patronizing knowledgeable
> people but reveal nothing else than to expect submission from their
> peers...insulting them...When I point that out I am boorish?
>
So pointing out that you're boorish makes it acceptable somehow ? Does
that charm school you went to have lots of pupils ?
Keith H Duggar
> Cimode wrote:
> > *saving us*? He is no fucking Christ!!! I don't know
> > why some people have this obssessional need to be
> > saved!!
>
> Where did you get "obsessional" from in what Gene wrote?
> Maybe you should spend more time concentrating on the text
> rather than trying to read between the lines?
I think it (Commode) was thinking of the "confessional" that
it visits regularly.
> > If you want to save yourself, open a book read and do
> > your best to understand... ...You talk about him as a
> > sect guru leader..
> >
>
> Never having been in a sect, I'll bow to your presumably
> better experience and knowledge of such things.
Exactly. Now you understand his knowledge of "confessional".
> I think your spleen got the better of you there, because
> that paragraph just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not
> that it had much degeneration to do, mind.
The truly bizarre thing is that Commode appeared only a few
days before Dawn ran off to cry. Makes one wonder... Perhaps
a cosmic balance is being maintained. Crank conservation.
By the way, has anyone noticed that cranks frequently
respond to their own posts multiple times?
-- Keith --
Cimode
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > *saving us*? He is no fucking Christ!!! I don't know
> > > why some people have this obssessional need to be
> > > saved!!
> >
> > Where did you get "obsessional" from in what Gene wrote?
> > Maybe you should spend more time concentrating on the text
> > rather than trying to read between the lines?
point out the hypocrisy of some people on this group pretending to
promote exchange of ideas while in fact they keep sterilizing the
debate by refusing to adress issued that contradict their point,
pretending to be *saved by BB* while I observed he lack too much
fundamental knowledge in mathematics and RM to keep a coherent
thinking...I adressed simple issues with sound arguments that
demonstrated his incoherent thinking...But
Just read the thread's comments and some of the terinology used by some
people and I you will understand...Of course if you don't bother, you
will merely by a believer...
It's not about reading between the lines it's about warning people
about infatuation which can drive your judgment, instead of reasonning.
> I think it (Commode) was thinking of the "confessional" that
> it visits regularly.
I do not visit confessionals
For you knowledge, I am purely agnostic and I don't give a damn about
your judeo christian heritage (I respect it though)...I compared the
feeble mind of some people who qualify things easily without
observation or anything logical...People who have a hypocritical
attitude toward others...Claiming they are here to help when in fact
they just expect obedience from the people who argue with them...That
kills debate...
And from what I can see, BB has trained you well...
> > > If you want to save yourself, open a book read and do
> > > your best to understand... ...You talk about him as a
> > > sect guru leader..
> > >
> >
> > Never having been in a sect, I'll bow to your presumably
> > better experience and knowledge of such things.
>
> Exactly. Now you understand his knowledge of "confessional".
>
> > I think your spleen got the better of you there, because
> > that paragraph just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not
> > that it had much degeneration to do, mind.
>
> The truly bizarre thing is that Commode appeared only a few
> days before Dawn ran off to cry. Makes one wonder... Perhaps
> a cosmic balance is being maintained. Crank conservation.
A new dellusion...I did not know about *Dawn* until reading your
post...
To find out the intention of your post I have read about Dawn...She
obviously lacks fundamental knowledge and understanding of RM
issues...BB and some people are even worse because they pretend to be
better but when you dig into their argument, you find out they totally
lack coherence and confuse SQL and RM concepts...When confronted to
sound proofs they either run away or insult you...Typical of a
barbarian attitude..How can something barbarian be knowldegeable?
> By the way, has anyone noticed that cranks frequently
> respond to their own posts multiple times?
The fact that I respond to posts is because I do not master (yet) all
subtleties in NG exchange...You conclusion about *crank* (a new word
added to my buzz prepackages thinking list...thanks)...Buy a
disctionnary and widen you vocabulary spectrum to put prepackaged words
on situations...A *prepackaged contemptous thinktank* is what describes
best BB and his dogs...
> -- Keith --
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > No. My observation of simple facts. I have proved by subjecting clear
> > proofs that some people had totally incoherent behaviors, claiming one
> > thing doing something opposite...I brought obvious examples and
> > questions about RAM memory to a so called knowledgeable audience who
> > chose to ignore the issues diqualifying them as nonsense and insulting
> > me.
> >
>
> At last ! The crux of the issue ! Bob (and/or others possibly) burned
> you off when you brought along a question of possibly dubious
> relevance, and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Boo hoo.
even read the thread...
> > You are just too buried in BS to see it...
> >
>
> Nope, no BS around here. Or was that metaphorical ? Rhetorical, maybe ?
>
> > >From what I heard from some ignorants about mathematics and its
> > supposed application to RM just makes me think this NG is full of
> > crappola who really are delluding themselves...Even worse, they have a
> > contemptuous self congratulating attitude and hyppocrisy that sickens
> > me...Thanks god a few have had the spirit into bringing some fresh
> > ideas into this space...
>
> Another fine example of the kind of well reasoned, mannered,
> sophisticated debate you'd like to introduce, presumably.
It is an simple observation of facts and interaction with some people
among which BB...
I do not insult people, I do not run away when they adress or challenge
me...I may just say I am wrong WHEN somebody proves me wrong...I just
get sick of contemptuous attitude...
> > Who are the others? Infatuated idiots who don't have a clue of the
> > concepts they try to handle...
> >
>
> The toys are flying out of the pram now... FWIW, I'm not infatuated
> with Bob. Hell, he hasn't even taken me out for dinner, never mind a
> proper date or anything.
I am talking about intellectual infatuation Duhhh...You truly are
convinced he is a knowldegeable source of information while he lacks 2
fundamental qualities for that: coherence in his acts and statement and
fundamental education about mathematics to understand better RM....
...When was the last time you have heard from BB that he was totally
wrong when challenged and proven wrong or off topic? Of ourse you
can't recall, your ears are filled up with SQL crappola...
> > *saving us*? He is no fucking Christ!!!
> > I don't know why some people have this obssessional need to be saved!!
>
> Where did you get "obsessional" from in what Gene wrote ? Maybe you
> should spend more time concentrating on the text rather than trying to
> read between the lines ?
>
> > If you want to save yourself, open a book read and do your best to
> > understand...
> > ...You talk about him as a sect guru leader..
> >
>
> Never having been in a sect, I'll bow to your presumably better
> experience and knowledge of such things.
I used a sect as an analogy to compare the behavior and exchanging
style with some people. I observed, read responses and draw
conclusions...That's all there's to it...
I have never had any experience with sects..For your knowledge I am
agnostic.
> > This post indicates you truly are too infatuated with BB to be
> > objective...
> >
> > BB and lots of people that follow him like dogs just lack fundamental
> > knowledge on what constitute the source of RM: Mathematics...They do
> > not know shit about what an Axiom is... what scientifical methodology
> > is but portray themselves as sources of information...That says a lot
> > about the current level of data management and science in this
> > NG...Instead of compensating their ignorance by hard work in learning
> > they prefer pre-packaged ways of dealing with opposite ideas..How
> > practical?
> >
>
> I think your spleen got the better of you there, because that paragraph
> just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not that it had much
> degeneration to do, mind.
Yeah easy to disqualify people using concepts such as *spleen*...I bet
you don't even know the meaning of this term...How practical...
Cimode
Totally irrelevant...My academic background is not relevant...As is the
rest of your posts..You have not brought anything but trials of
intents...In a waord you base your knowledge on belief rather than
reasoning..
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > I am not talking about myself...
> >
>
> Oh but you are. More than it appears you could ever possibly realise.
> > I am offended by the hypocrisy demonstrated by some close minded morons
> > and deluded idiots who portray themselves as patronizing knowledgeable
> > people but reveal nothing else than to expect submission from their
> > peers...insulting them...When I point that out I am boorish?
> >
>
> So pointing out that you're boorish makes it acceptable somehow ? Does
> that charm school you went to have lots of pupils ?
I am not talking about myself..Are you mentally impaired? Don't you
know how to read?
Cimode
x wrote:
> "Tony D" <tonyis...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1150408938.1...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
> > > no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> > > infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> > >
>
> > Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough, in-depth analysis
> > of the motivations, views, thoughts and opinions of those who post in
> > this group. Not.
spend years talking about that...insults, BS and incoherence does not
require in depth analysis...OTOH, discussing areas that have not been
sufficiently addressed requires effort, coherence and humility...BB and
his barking dogs lack both...
> Huh !?!? A reaction or a retraction ?
This is railroad station phylosophy..Don't forget to bring your Reader
Digest next time...
> > > A lot of what?
> > > A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> > > insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a sterile
> > > field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> > > and "you are saying nonsense"
>
>
> > Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
You have to be careful with such concept...Some people may use it to
disqualify anything that proves them wrong...
> And often not.
>
> Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
To do what? To denounce the hyppocrisy and ignorance of some people
here...
> Where I have heard that before ? ...
Of course you have heard it before...It's just your ears are filled up
with SQL crappola to hear it...
> >Sometimes admittedly
> > Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> > someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> > talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> > can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> > with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> > earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades and
> > the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> > those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
A confused reasonning...
BB insults (due to a lack of good manners) is not the worse part of the
debate...His incoherence and hyppocrisy is...He pretends one thing
(like educate you, help you) and in the next thread he insults you
which means he lacks coherence...I observe that and I do not need to
put a word on it (spade BS)...I describe a situation I observe
period...
> Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
BS, I have used terms, defined terms reexplained terms again and
again..Some people get it right away but certainly not paradign blinded
idiots
> > > I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> > > understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive insults...
>
> > Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
That was my initial thought but I was wrong...
I reread the entire thread and presented him with documented and
succint ways of proving that some allegation he made were irrelevant
and wrong...No answer...Therefore, I draw a conclusion...
> Or maybe not, 'cause he has not shown that.
>
> 0x2B | 0x2B that's the question.
>
> > > If you advocate "jumping on people" is the best way to handle KOTM
> > > people, you are delluding yourself...
> > > KOTM have a life...All you gain from *jumping on them* is either *rough
> > > charm infatuation* or *disgust*...Neither infatuation nor *disgust*
> > > help people exchange ideas in a productive..
>
> > It entirely depends on the method of engagement. If someone turns up
> > asking an honest question, looking for honest answers, they generally
> > get them.
BS science does not rely on etiquette or form..It relies on proofs,
facts and sound reasonning...You are trying to defend the
undefendable...Speaking of *method of engagement*, do you truly think
that insults is a nice *method of enagement*...I do not really give a
damn about etiquette but I do give a damn about data management science
that SQL reasonning keeps continuously burrying day after day...
> If someone turns up it will be turned down.
>
> http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
>
> Garcon! Another turn!
>
> >If someone turns up asking leading questions
>
> What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
>
> >or pushing an
> > opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> > over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> > well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> > it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
>
> Who's agenda ?
You better stick to jokes...Seems you are better at it than RM and data
management ;)
Cimode
You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?
1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
3 - YES..
3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are
full of crappola
4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up
his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to
barking dogs...
5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded
spirit...
> Quite how all this squares with your apparent views about Bob Badour
> isn't immediately apparent to me.
Check
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
for further details...
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?
>
Oh dear. I didn't change a numbering when I added a point. Dear oh
dear. Well, that makes the whole thing invalid then, I suppose ?
> 1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
> 2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
> 3 - YES..
> 3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are
> full of crappola
> 4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up
> his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to
> barking dogs...
> 5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
> and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded
> spirit...
>
Maybe if you read what I had written a little more closely rather than
taking your customary, it seems, knee-jerk reaction to disagreement,
you would note that I wrote "poster", not "original poster" or "OP". My
comments were with regard to your post to Roy Hann. Pay attention.
> Check
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
>
> for further details...
No, I don't think I will; I saw the title of that thread and decided it
was likely of little interest; if you really want to you can check my
previous history of posts for my attitude to object oriented
programming. I'm open to changing my opinion, but as time goes by the
chances of my opinion on OO changing are decreasing. And if someone is
going to change my opinion, it probably won't be via an internet
newsgroup.
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> I will add *boorish* of lexical terms for prepackaged thinking
> Totally irrelevant...My academic background is not relevant...As is the
> rest of your posts..You have not brought anything but trials of
> intents...In a waord you base your knowledge on belief rather than
> reasoning..
You can define "boorish" that way if you like, but reference to
dictionary may be more helpful to you.
Who said anything about your academic background ? Shall I assume you
didn't manage to pick up on the sarcasm in the reference to "charm
school" ?
In the rest of my posts, I have commented on the disconnect between
your apparent distaste for Bob Badour's manners and your own;
everything you complain about Bob doing, you have done yourself, and in
even worse tones.
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several weeks
> > no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> > infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> >
>
> Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough, in-depth analysis
> of the motivations, views, thoughts and opinions of those who post in
> this group. Not.
>
> > A lot of what?
> > A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> > insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a sterile
> > field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> > and "you are saying nonsense"
> >
>
> Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade. Sometimes admittedly
> Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness"
you can't disqualify their arguments...Well sir let me tell you that RM
science is not practical..it's about efforts observing, advancing
carefully weighting and being sincere with yourself...
Nothing demonstrated so far by BB brings to anything else that he lacks
coherence and knowledge...
When people focus onto more onto sticking people's foreheads than
discuss their ideas that proves a point...They are pure premium quality
BS burried...
> talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades and
> the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
Damn here comes the money bragging...
> > I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> > understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive insults...
> >
>
> Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
>
> > If you advocate "jumping on people" is the best way to handle KOTM
> > people, you are delluding yourself...
> > KOTM have a life...All you gain from *jumping on them* is either *rough
> > charm infatuation* or *disgust*...Neither infatuation nor *disgust*
> > help people exchange ideas in a productive..
> >
>
> It entirely depends on the method of engagement. If someone turns up
> asking an honest question, looking for honest answers, they generally
> get them. If someone turns up asking leading questions or pushing an
> opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
>
> Even though his phraseology may occasionally make me wince, I view many
> of Bob's postings with a "he says these things so we don't have to"
> outlook.
I state he and some are full of BS...Somebody who defines a
mathematical axiom as a boolean function is full of crap. He and some
others just lack he fundamental mathematical knowledge...What pisses me
off is their contemptous attitude thinking they can understand RM
through SQL...
.
> > Stupid questions trigger stupid responses...
> And I'll say that again :
> And in the context of this whole stream of postings, I'll say it again
That's what happens when somebody lacks argument and vocabulary, he/she
first uses prepackaged practical concepts he/she heard on a specific
thread...At the end, he can not use anything else than symbols...I bet
if we were face to face you would be growning (you know like
neanderthalians men)....A beautiful example of barbarian and uneducated
attitude...
Cimode
Tony D a écrit :
> Cimode wrote:
> > You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?
> >
>
> Oh dear. I didn't change a numbering when I added a point. Dear oh
> dear. Well, that makes the whole thing invalid then, I suppose ?
>
> > 1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
> > 2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
> > 3 - YES..
> > 3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are
> > full of crappola
> > 4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up
> > his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to
> > barking dogs...
> > 5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
> > and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded
> > spirit...
> >
>
> Maybe if you read what I had written a little more closely rather than
> taking your customary, it seems, knee-jerk reaction to disagreement,
> you would note that I wrote "poster", not "original poster" or "OP". My
> comments were with regard to your post to Roy Hann. Pay attention.
Misunderstood..But took time responding to your insults...
> > Check
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
> >
> > for further details...
>
> No, I don't think I will; I saw the title of that thread and decided it
> was likely of little interest;
I pointed out that link to answer your question...
That says a lot about how superficial you are...you can actually make
an entire idea about a subject through reading a title and without
readining the content of thread
if you really want to you can check my
> previous history of posts for my attitude to object oriented
> programming. I'm open to changing my opinion, but as time goes by the
> chances of my opinion on OO changing are decreasing. And if someone is
> going to change my opinion, it probably won't be via an internet
> newsgroup.
I am not an OO advocate but if you would have taken the time to read
the issue at hand it was about just about OO mechanisms but also how
ANY programming or physical mechanism could help better relvar at
physical level...Your knowledge of RM must be as superficial as your
ability and motivation to get into technical and theoretical
exchanges....
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > Oh but you are. More than it appears you could ever possibly realise.
> OK. Prove it.
>
> > So pointing out that you're boorish makes it acceptable somehow ? Does
> > that charm school you went to have lots of pupils ?
>
> I am not talking about myself..Are you mentally impaired? Don't you
> know how to read?
By our choice of language, words and tone, we let people know more
about how we view the world and the people in it than we'd often care
to admit. In your posts on this thread, you have accused people of
talking BS, of hypocrisy, called them barking dogs, accused them of
being infatuated with Bob Badour, amongst a variety of other things,
and in this post you question whether I am mentally impaired. All
because I think your somewhat splenetic responses to posts on this
thread are at complete odds with your distaste for Bob Badour's
language in dealing with other people.
Now, given the language, words and tone you have chosen to use in this
thread, what sort of person do you think you have announced yourself as
?
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> > I will add *boorish* of lexical terms for prepackaged thinking
> > Totally irrelevant...My academic background is not relevant...As is the
> > rest of your posts..You have not brought anything but trials of
> > intents...In a waord you base your knowledge on belief rather than
> > reasoning..
>
> You can define "boorish" that way if you like, but reference to
> dictionary may be more helpful to you.
totally irrelevant to technical exchanges. I leave that to people BB
and his peers...My worry is about exchanging technical ideas with
audiences that do not disqualify anything that does not enter their
field of perception...
> Who said anything about your academic background ? Shall I assume you
> didn't manage to pick up on the sarcasm in the reference to "charm
> school" ?
Why don't you assume your position through explicit communication?
What a hypocrisy!!!
> In the rest of my posts, I have commented on the disconnect between
> your apparent distaste for Bob Badour's manners and your own;
Don't you read!!
Distates is not relevant..I exposed his and some of his peer's
incoherence through sound arguments and proofs...I do not give a damn
about the person...
> everything you complain about Bob doing, you have done yourself, and in
> even worse tones.
BS prove it...I have taken the time to respond to your insults and
arguments one by one...That's a mark of respect you probably do not
even deserve!!!
I have not disqualified you as nonsense to evade your stupid posts...I
did not call you a crank, a troll, or whatever BS prepapackaged term
you can put on people to disqualify what *SEEMS* wrong to you...However
I have pointed out to you your incoherence, your superficiality and
ignorance of RM concepts...
Jeez who am I talking to?
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > No. My observation of simple facts. I have proved by subjecting clear
> > > proofs that some people had totally incoherent behaviors, claiming one
> > > thing doing something opposite...I brought obvious examples and
> > > questions about RAM memory to a so called knowledgeable audience who
> > > chose to ignore the issues diqualifying them as nonsense and insulting
> > > me.
> > >
> >
> > At last ! The crux of the issue ! Bob (and/or others possibly) burned
> > you off when you brought along a question of possibly dubious
> > relevance, and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Boo hoo.
> You base your statement on BELIEF rather than REASON... You have not
> even read the thread...
>
No, I based my statement to two things :
1. The last part of the last sentence in the paragraph quoted: namely,
"I brought obvious examples and questions about RAM memory to a so
called knowledgeable audience who chose to ignore the issues
diqualifying (sic) them as nonsense and insulting me." (hence clause 1
: "Bob (and/or others possibly) burned you off when you brought along a
question of possibly dubious relevance,")
2. The manner in which you have chosen to present yourself in your
posts in this thread (hence clause 2 : "and now you're throwing a hissy
fit.")
Would you care to detail where BELIEF came into that, rather than
REASON ?
> > > You are just too buried in BS to see it...
> > >
> >
> > Nope, no BS around here. Or was that metaphorical ? Rhetorical, maybe ?
> >
> > > >From what I heard from some ignorants about mathematics and its
> > > supposed application to RM just makes me think this NG is full of
> > > crappola who really are delluding themselves...Even worse, they have a
> > > contemptuous self congratulating attitude and hyppocrisy that sickens
> > > me...Thanks god a few have had the spirit into bringing some fresh
> > > ideas into this space...
> >
> > Another fine example of the kind of well reasoned, mannered,
> > sophisticated debate you'd like to introduce, presumably.
> It is an simple observation of facts and interaction with some people
> among which BB...
> I do not insult people,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I do not run away when they adress or challenge
> me...
No, you stick around and insult them a bit more.
>I may just say I am wrong WHEN somebody proves me wrong...I just
> get sick of contemptuous attitude...
>
Whilst displaying plenty of it yourself.
> > > Who are the others? Infatuated idiots who don't have a clue of the
> > > concepts they try to handle...
> > >
> >
> > The toys are flying out of the pram now... FWIW, I'm not infatuated
> > with Bob. Hell, he hasn't even taken me out for dinner, never mind a
> > proper date or anything.
> I am talking about intellectual infatuation Duhhh...You truly are
> convinced he is a knowldegeable source of information while he lacks 2
> fundamental qualities for that: coherence in his acts and statement and
> fundamental education about mathematics to understand better RM....
>
Can I assume you aren't a native English speaker ? That was a pretty
obvious joke. Maybe not a good one, but an obvious joke all the same.
Maybe I should have :-))) it for you. So far, Bob hasn't said much I
disagree with about RM specifically. ISTR agreeing to disagree a while
ago about the relative merits of D&D's type system and the Milner type
system though.
> ...When was the last time you have heard from BB that he was totally
> wrong when challenged and proven wrong or off topic? Of ourse you
> can't recall, your ears are filled up with SQL crappola...
>
Why would my ears be filled with "SQL crappola" ? Read some of my
previous posts for what I think of SQL, if you can be bothered.
> I used a sect as an analogy to compare the behavior and exchanging
> style with some people. I observed, read responses and draw
> conclusions...That's all there's to it...
>
> I have never had any experience with sects..For your knowledge I am
> agnostic.
>
That's nice for you, I'm sure.
> > I think your spleen got the better of you there, because that paragraph
> > just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not that it had much
> > degeneration to do, mind.
> Yeah easy to disqualify people using concepts such as *spleen*...I bet
> you don't even know the meaning of this term...How practical...
Maybe you should take a trip to dictionary.com, move past the medical
descriptions of a spleen, and then decide whether "ill temper" or
"feelings of resentful anger" don't actually describe your method of
self-expression rather well. I have no idea whether you are actually in
a splenetic rage or not, but the way in which you express yourself
suggests that you are.
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Tony D wrote:
>
> > > Oh but you are. More than it appears you could ever possibly realise.
> > OK. Prove it.
> >
>
> > > So pointing out that you're boorish makes it acceptable somehow ? Does
> > > that charm school you went to have lots of pupils ?
> >
> > I am not talking about myself..Are you mentally impaired? Don't you
> > know how to read?
>
> By our choice of language, words and tone, we let people know more
> about how we view the world and the people in it than we'd often care
> to admit. In your posts on this thread, you have accused people of
> talking BS, of hypocrisy, called them barking dogs, accused them of
> being infatuated with Bob Badour, amongst a variety of other things,
> and in this post you question whether I am mentally impaired. All
> because I think your somewhat splenetic responses to posts on this
> thread are at complete odds with your distaste for Bob Badour's
> language in dealing with other people.
> Now, given the language, words and tone you have chosen to use in this
> thread, what sort of person do you think you have announced yourself as
> ?
The language used is plain english and is not directly adressed to
anybody in particular except to BB and 2 or 3 others...Anybody who
recognizes himself in the definitions I have exposed and the situations
and incoherences I have explained and pointed out should draw his own
conclusions...
When I ask you if you are mentally impaired, it is a legitimate
question considering the unfounded or irrelevant statements you are
continuously making...
If hurt well then I am sorry for you (poor baby). If you engage in
public debate ready to accuse people and insult them without sound
reasonning you got to pay consequences...
Another proof of hypocrisy...
Tony D
> Of course if you don't bother, you will merely by a believer...
and
> Claiming they are here to help when in fact
> they just expect obedience from the people who argue with them...
So, if you don't agree with Cimode, then you're just a believer. And if
you agree with Bob, then you're one of his dogs. What are you if you
agree with Cimode ? One of the elect ?
> The fact that I respond to posts is because I do not master (yet) all
> subtleties in NG exchange...You conclusion about *crank* (a new word
> added to my buzz prepackages thinking list...thanks)...Buy a
> disctionnary and widen you vocabulary spectrum to put prepackaged words
> on situations...A *prepackaged contemptous thinktank* is what describes
> best BB and his dogs...
The instruction to buy a "disctionnary" would have been so much more
powerful if it had been spelt correctly. (Oh, and ":-))))" for anyone
who needs it.)
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> >From this, I will highlight two sentences from Cimode :
>
> > Of course if you don't bother, you will merely by a believer...
>
> and
>
> > Claiming they are here to help when in fact
> > they just expect obedience from the people who argue with them...
>
> So, if you don't agree with Cimode, then you're just a believer. And if
> you agree with Bob, then you're one of his dogs. What are you if you
> agree with Cimode ? One of the elect ?
with sincere observation of facts and threads...
> > The fact that I respond to posts is because I do not master (yet) all
> > subtleties in NG exchange...You conclusion about *crank* (a new word
> > added to my buzz prepackages thinking list...thanks)...Buy a
> > disctionnary and widen you vocabulary spectrum to put prepackaged words
> > on situations...A *prepackaged contemptous thinktank* is what describes
> > best BB and his dogs...
>
> The instruction to buy a "disctionnary" would have been so much more
> powerful if it had been spelt correctly. (Oh, and ":-))))" for anyone
> who needs it.)
Sorry for the mispelling but English is NOT my native language and I
may make some TYPOS but I probably speak it better than several native
speakers here...Given the little vocabulary you have demonstrated so
far you are in NO position to be a paternalistic guide to me LOL Even
in your own god damn language...
BTW, How many languages do you speak? Oh yeah I forgot: only one and
you brag about it...
Tony D
You didn't answer the question. What sort of opinion do you think I am
forming of you, based on the way you are conducting yourself in this
thread ? Do you think the opinion I am forming of you is that much
different to the one you seem to have quickly formed of Bob ?
> If hurt well then I am sorry for you (poor baby).
Nope, I'm not hurt. Thank you for your concern though (however
insincere it may be).
> If you engage in
> public debate ready to accuse people and insult them without sound
> reasonning you got to pay consequences...
> Another proof of hypocrisy...
So far, I don't think I have insulted you too much, if at all really.
(A joke, involving the French guard in Monty Python & the Holy Grail
has just sprung to mind.) I have taken issue with your one-sided
reinterpretation of others posts, your immoderate tone and your
occasional descent into incomprehensiblity. Would you care to outline
the proof of hypocrisy you have found so far ?
Cimode
1- You ASSUMED without checking the thread about RAM issues that BB and
his barking dogs burned me off...If coherent with REASON you would have
checked the thread and made an opinion out of it...But you did
not...That leaves BELIEF.
2 - For the same as above, you assume with no proof to back it
up...THerefor you are driven by BELIEF...
> > > > You are just too buried in BS to see it...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, no BS around here. Or was that metaphorical ? Rhetorical, maybe ?
> > >
> > > > >From what I heard from some ignorants about mathematics and its
> > > > supposed application to RM just makes me think this NG is full of
> > > > crappola who really are delluding themselves...Even worse, they have a
> > > > contemptuous self congratulating attitude and hyppocrisy that sickens
> > > > me...Thanks god a few have had the spirit into bringing some fresh
> > > > ideas into this space...
> > >
> > > Another fine example of the kind of well reasoned, mannered,
> > > sophisticated debate you'd like to introduce, presumably.
> > It is an simple observation of facts and interaction with some people
> > among which BB...
> > I do not insult people,
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >I do not run away when they adress or challenge
> > me...
>
> No, you stick around and insult them a bit more.
NO I expose them...What are you gone a do censor me, disqualify me,
call me a prank or whathever BS term...How practical!!!
> >I may just say I am wrong WHEN somebody proves me wrong...I just
> > get sick of contemptuous attitude...
> >
>
> Whilst displaying plenty of it yourself.
BS.
> > > > Who are the others? Infatuated idiots who don't have a clue of the
> > > > concepts they try to handle...
> > > >
> > >
> > > The toys are flying out of the pram now... FWIW, I'm not infatuated
> > > with Bob. Hell, he hasn't even taken me out for dinner, never mind a
> > > proper date or anything.
> > I am talking about intellectual infatuation Duhhh...You truly are
> > convinced he is a knowldegeable source of information while he lacks 2
> > fundamental qualities for that: coherence in his acts and statement and
> > fundamental education about mathematics to understand better RM....
> >
>
> Can I assume you aren't a native English speaker ? That was a pretty
> obvious joke. Maybe not a good one, but an obvious joke all the same.
> Maybe I should have :-))) it for you. So far, Bob hasn't said much I
> disagree with about RM specifically. ISTR agreeing to disagree a while
> ago about the relative merits of D&D's type system and the Milner type
> system though.
> > ...When was the last time you have heard from BB that he was totally
> > wrong when challenged and proven wrong or off topic? Of ourse you
> > can't recall, your ears are filled up with SQL crappola...
> Why would my ears be filled with "SQL crappola" ? Read some of my
> previous posts for what I think of SQL, if you can be bothered.
Because the best this NG produces is SQL crappola feeders such as BB
and JM Davitt..I don't see how you could be an exception given this
single idiotic post of yours...(But I may be wrong)
> > I used a sect as an analogy to compare the behavior and exchanging
> > style with some people. I observed, read responses and draw
> > conclusions...That's all there's to it...
> >
> > I have never had any experience with sects..For your knowledge I am
> > agnostic.
> >
>
> That's nice for you, I'm sure.
>
> > > I think your spleen got the better of you there, because that paragraph
> > > just degenerated into gibberish to me. Not that it had much
> > > degeneration to do, mind.
> > Yeah easy to disqualify people using concepts such as *spleen*...I bet
> > you don't even know the meaning of this term...How practical...
>
> Maybe you should take a trip to dictionary.com, move past the medical
> descriptions of a spleen, and then decide whether "ill temper" or
> "feelings of resentful anger" don't actually describe your method of
> self-expression rather well. I have no idea whether you are actually in
> a splenetic rage or not, but the way in which you express yourself
> suggests that you are.
I told you already...I do not have time to waste defining people...
Cimode
Tony D a écrit :
Simple...
My opinion of BB is based on facts and statement made about RM
issues..Your opinion (that I don't give a damn about) relies
exclusively on my character not any facts I stated about RM...
I have given enough time to you. If you still do not understand...I am
sincerely begining to believ you are in fact menatlly impaired...Sorry
but I ca not do more for you...
Next time on a technical thread please/ Observe and see...
> > If hurt well then I am sorry for you (poor baby).
>
> Nope, I'm not hurt. Thank you for your concern though (however
> insincere it may be).
>
> > If you engage in
> > public debate ready to accuse people and insult them without sound
> > reasonning you got to pay consequences...
> > Another proof of hypocrisy...
>
> So far, I don't think I have insulted you too much, if at all really.
*insulted you too much* So? What's next? insult levels?
...Let me tell you this...
By diverting right away on my person instead of my RM related
statements, you have insulted me but not only me..You have insulted the
motivation of several people who seek knowledge rather intent
trials...You have insulted all people who believe in REASON rather
BELIEF...
> (A joke, involving the French guard in Monty Python & the Holy Grail
> has just sprung to mind.) I have taken issue with your one-sided
> reinterpretation of others posts, your immoderate tone and your
> occasional descent into incomprehensiblity. Would you care to outline
> the proof of hypocrisy you have found so far ?
I would write down books about it, you would still not understand...You
are a lost cause I am afraid...
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Tony D a écrit :
>
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?
> > >
> >
> > Oh dear. I didn't change a numbering when I added a point. Dear oh
> > dear. Well, that makes the whole thing invalid then, I suppose ?
> >
> > > 1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
> > > 2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
> > > 3 - YES..
> > > 3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are
> > > full of crappola
> > > 4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up
> > > his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to
> > > barking dogs...
> > > 5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
> > > and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded
> > > spirit...
> > >
> >
> > Maybe if you read what I had written a little more closely rather than
> > taking your customary, it seems, knee-jerk reaction to disagreement,
> > you would note that I wrote "poster", not "original poster" or "OP". My
> > comments were with regard to your post to Roy Hann. Pay attention.
> Misunderstood..But took time responding to your insults...
>
No insults there. If you really want some insults, I'm sure I could
cook some up for you.
> > > Check
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/54e82593b205a2a8
> > >
> > > for further details...
> >
> > No, I don't think I will; I saw the title of that thread and decided it
> > was likely of little interest;
> I pointed out that link to answer your question...
> That says a lot about how superficial you are...you can actually make
> an entire idea about a subject through reading a title and without
> readining the content of thread
I can look at a thread title, and if it reads "Possible bridges between
OO programming proponents and relational model" then I'll pass. If any
nuggets of worthwhile insight or value pop up, and I disregard them in
a future post, I expect I will be pointed in the appropriate direction.
Trawling 146 posts (current total on Google) doesn't seem to be a
valuable use of time. (And before you ask, I can answer these posts in
between doing other, more useful things. Reading a thread from top to
bottom, starting off from a premise ("bridges between OO programming
proponents and RM") that holds no great interest for me, would
represent a far greater investment in time and concentration than I'm
willing to devote to it just now.)
> I am not an OO advocate but if you would have taken the time to read
> the issue at hand it was about just about OO mechanisms but also how
> ANY programming or physical mechanism could help better relvar at
> physical level...Your knowledge of RM must be as superficial as your
> ability and motivation to get into technical and theoretical
> exchanges....
It depends on the technical and theoretical exchange. I would have
liked to have had more time available to answer Pickie's questions and
concerns in the thread on Operationalizing Orthogonality, for example,
as I'm certain they could have been allayed. Another time, perhaps. And
as for the physical level, I'm so disinterested in that now that it
surprises me. The most interesting things in computing science can
probably be done with a sheet of paper and a pen, with a computer used
only to verify the results.
Tony D
> People CAN and SHOULD disagree but based on reason. reason coupled
> with sincere observation of facts and threads...
>
At long last, a statement I can agree with. Phew.
> Sorry for the mispelling but English is NOT my native language and I
> may make some TYPOS but I probably speak it better than several native
> speakers here...
I thought that may be the case, as your grasp of nuance is so poor. It
probably also explains your immoderate tone and poor word choice.
However, your English is better than my French.
> Given the little vocabulary you have demonstrated so
> far you are in NO position to be a paternalistic guide to me LOL Even
> in your own god damn language...
>
> BTW, How many languages do you speak? Oh yeah I forgot: only one and
> you brag about it...
I haven't bragged about my English anywhere. (Indeed, I've made a
couple of shocking typos in this thread.) And how do you know that I
only speak one language ? From what did you deduce that ?
Tony D
> Tony D a écrit :
> My opinion of BB is based on facts and statement made about RM
> issues..Your opinion (that I don't give a damn about) relies
> exclusively on my character not any facts I stated about RM...
> I have given enough time to you. If you still do not understand...I am
> sincerely begining to believ you are in fact menatlly impaired...Sorry
> but I ca not do more for you...
>
Because all you have offered *on this thread* is a variety of insults
towards Bob, those who agree with Bob, and anyone who doesn't agree
with you. I thought this might be a bit lacking in terms of source
material, so I visited another recent thread in which you have
participated that may have been of some interest than the OO stuff you
pointed me to before: "Little Question for RDM Theoristes". Your
handling of JM Davitt there was as bad as anything Bob has handed out
(although I don't recall Bob ever accusing someone of calling him an
idiot out of nowhere, as you did with Davitt). You assumed a position,
did not enunciate that position particularly clearly and rebuked in a
variety of ways those who disagreed with you. That, sir, makes you
guilty of precisely the behaviour you criticise another for. There's a
word for people who behave that way - it might even start with an 'h'
...
> Next time on a technical thread please/ Observe and see...
>
> > So far, I don't think I have insulted you too much, if at all really.
> *insulted you too much* So? What's next? insult levels?
Yes; some language and terms are more insulting than others. If I say,
"you're being silly," that's one thing. If I say "you're being a
cloth-eared idiot," that's another. If I say "you're a clueless moron,"
that's something else again. If I say "you're a hypocritical mental
deficient," that's on quite another plane of insult.
> ...Let me tell you this...
>
Ooh, I'm all rapt attention now... (if I was standing up, I would have
clicked my heels there...)
> By diverting right away on my person instead of my RM related
> statements, you have insulted me but not only me..
And as I said before, you haven't said anything about RM **on this
thread**; all you've done so far is accuse others of BS, hypocrisy,
mental deficiency, etc etc etc.
> You have insulted the
> motivation of several people who seek knowledge rather intent
> trials...You have insulted all people who believe in REASON rather
> BELIEF...
>
Have I really ? That's a lot of people. If I had known I was insulting
that many people I would have expended some effort on it.
> I would write down books about it, you would still not understand...
Depends how good you are at writing.
> You are a lost cause I am afraid...
Oooh, look ! Patronising paternalism to go with the insults, invective
and hypocrisy !
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> I dont' bother defining prepackaged idiotic concepts and ideas that are
> totally irrelevant to technical exchanges.
But it was you who said "When I point out that I am boorish ?" (June
16, 8:18pm). Didn't you bother to find out what you were pointing out
about yourself ? Isn't that a bit superficial ?
> Why don't you assume your position through explicit communication?
> What a hypocrisy!!!
>
Where was the hypocrisy in using the sarcastic term "charm school" for
your utterly charmless demeanour ?
> Don't you read!!
Sometimes, I wish I didn't.
> Distates is not relevant..
Very true. Like and dislike are very cheap. Best not be governed by
them.
> I exposed his and some of his peer's
> incoherence through sound arguments and proofs...
In the thread I read, you blustered in a similar way to you do on this
thread when someone didn't agree with you. There wasn't much coherence
to your "arguments".
> I do not give a damn about the person...
>
Perhaps "boor" really is on the mark then: "a person with rude, clumsy
manners and little refinement."
> > everything you complain about Bob doing, you have done yourself, and in
> > even worse tones.
>
> BS prove it...I have taken the time to respond to your insults and
> arguments one by one...That's a mark of respect you probably do not
> even deserve!!!
>
My only argument is that you behave in exactly the manner you
disapprove of when Bob behaves that way; that makes you some kind of
hypocrite. You've never responded to that argument, apart from in your
conduct.
> I have not disqualified you as nonsense to evade your stupid posts...
Why thank you.
> I did not call you a crank, a troll, or whatever BS prepapackaged term
> you can put on people to disqualify what *SEEMS* wrong to you...
So far, I haven't called you a crank, a troll, or any other "BS
prepapackaged term" (whatever that is). I *have* called you a boor and
a hypocrite.
> However I have pointed out to you your incoherence,
Nope.
> your superficiality
Nope.
> and ignorance of RM concepts...
>
So far in this thread, you have said diddley-squat about RM concepts to
me. So you can't possibly have pointed out my ignorance of them.
> Jeez who am I talking to?
Calm down, mate. You'll burst something.
Cimode
can't make sense of anything...A real time haven...I won't even bother
with you...Some p
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Tony D a écrit :
> > Simple...
> > My opinion of BB is based on facts and statement made about RM
> > issues..Your opinion (that I don't give a damn about) relies
> > exclusively on my character not any facts I stated about RM...
> > I have given enough time to you. If you still do not understand...I am
> > sincerely begining to believ you are in fact menatlly impaired...Sorry
> > but I ca not do more for you...
> >
>
> Because all you have offered *on this thread* is a variety of insults
> towards Bob, those who agree with Bob, and anyone who doesn't agree
> with you. I thought this might be a bit lacking in terms of source
> material, so I visited another recent thread in which you have
> participated that may have been of some interest than the OO stuff you
> pointed me to before: "Little Question for RDM Theoristes". Your
> handling of JM Davitt there was as bad as anything Bob has handed out
> (although I don't recall Bob ever accusing someone of calling him an
> idiot out of nowhere, as you did with Davitt). You assumed a position,
> did not enunciate that position particularly clearly and rebuked in a
> variety of ways those who disagreed with you. That, sir, makes you
> guilty of precisely the behaviour you criticise another for. There's a
> word for people who behave that way - it might even start with an 'h'
> > Next time on a technical thread please/ Observe and see...
> >
> > > So far, I don't think I have insulted you too much, if at all really.
> > *insulted you too much* So? What's next? insult levels?
>
> Yes; some language and terms are more insulting than others. If I say,
> "you're being silly," that's one thing. If I say "you're being a
> cloth-eared idiot," that's another. If I say "you're a clueless moron,"
> that's something else again. If I say "you're a hypocritical mental
> deficient," that's on quite another plane of insult.
More crappola
> > ...Let me tell you this...
> >
>
> Ooh, I'm all rapt attention now... (if I was standing up, I would have
> clicked my heels there...)
>
> > By diverting right away on my person instead of my RM related
> > statements, you have insulted me but not only me..
>
> And as I said before, you haven't said anything about RM **on this
> thread**; all you've done so far is accuse others of BS, hypocrisy,
> mental deficiency, etc etc etc.
You are the one bringing irrelevant subject about me...and you got the
nerve state I don't discuss RM...
> > You have insulted the
> > motivation of several people who seek knowledge rather intent
> > trials...You have insulted all people who believe in REASON rather
> > BELIEF...
> >
>
> Have I really ? That's a lot of people. If I had known I was insulting
> that many people I would have expended some effort on it.
No..You should be ashamed of yourself...
> > I would write down books about it, you would still not understand...
>
> Depends how good you are at writing.
My writing is unuseful because you cant' read and make sense out of
simple ideas...You are mentally impaired I am afraid...
> > You are a lost cause I am afraid...
>
> Oooh, look ! Patronising paternalism to go with the insults, invective
> and hypocrisy ! Thanks god I was the one denouncing them wit most force on this thread...Gives me some hope something triggered in your puny mind...
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Among the people I spoke to to day you are probably the dummiest...Just
> can't make sense of anything...A real time haven...I won't even bother
> with you...Some p
This is a bit of a trait of your posts; sentences appear to start then
disappear into nothingness. "Some p..." what ?
> LOL
>
Glad you found it funny.
> More crappola
No, just pointing out your boorishness... oh wait, you did that for
yourself, didn't you ?
> You are the one bringing irrelevant subject about me...and you got the
> nerve state I don't discuss RM...
>
Go on - point to a post *on this thread* where you discuss anything *at
all* about the relational model, rather than the mental acuity or
personality of those who disagree with you. Go on.
> No..You should be ashamed of yourself...
>
If I *had* actually insulted anyone, I would be. Since I haven't, I'm
not.
> My writing is unuseful because you cant' read and make sense out of
> simple ideas...You are mentally impaired I am afraid...
>
I can't make a lot of sense of your garbled meanderings. So yes, your
writing is "unuseful" (sic). As for my level of mental impairment, I
think, given your other posts in this and other threads, you really
aren't in a fit state to judge on that.
> Thanks god I was the one denouncing them wit most force on this thread...Gives me some
> hope something triggered in your puny mind...
Actually, I was writing about the last sentence in your post, and
dismissing you as attempting a patronising paternalistic tone. You
really ought to read these things more carefully you know.
Oh, and by the way, I had a spare half hour and read over the thread
you pointed me to before. And I can report that :
a) It was at least as, if not even more, uninteresting and irrelevant
to me as I thought. As I mentioned before, I have somewhere between
little and no time for either OO or thinking about physical
representations, in memory or elsewhere. And at least at the start, you
did get hopelessly confused between logical and physical - or if you
weren't, you were so unable to express yourself you portrayed a
confused mind. Still, at least you've broken through the language
barrier enough to bandy about terms like "BS", "mentally impaired",
"hypocrisy" and so on.
b) You *did* get burned off - at least, being told to go fuck yourself
counts as being burned off as far as I'm concerned.
c) You conducted yourself with all the charm, tact and subtle wit
you've displayed on this thread too.
Can I be one of your frauds now please ? Oh go on, you know you want to
...
Cimode
Pickie
Cimode wrote:
<big snip>
> Buy a
> disctionnary and widen you vocabulary spectrum to put prepackaged words
> on situations
C'mon folks! Let's ALL buy a disctionnary and widen us vocabulary
spectrum!
ROTFLMAO
Keith H Duggar
x
news:1150543554....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> x wrote:
> > "Tony D" <tonyis...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:1150408938.1...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Cimode wrote:
> > > > What an empty accusation...I have observed this board for several
weeks
> > > > no and I saw BB's behavior I have tasted myself...Either people are
> > > > infatuated with this guy or they just think he's sick.
> > > >
> >
> > > Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough, in-depth analysis
> > > of the motivations, views, thoughts and opinions of those who post in
> > > this group. Not.
> One experiment or 2 experiments are enough to conclude...No need to
> spend years talking about that...insults, BS and incoherence does not
> require in depth analysis...OTOH, discussing areas that have not been
> sufficiently addressed requires effort, coherence and humility...BB and
> his barking dogs lack both...
> > Huh !?!? A reaction or a retraction ?
> This is railroad station phylosophy..Don't forget to bring your Reader
> Digest next time...
This is a railroad station.
> > > > A lot of what?
> > > > A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> > > > insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a
sterile
> > > > field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> > > > and "you are saying nonsense"
> >
> >
> > > Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
> You have to be careful with such concept...Some people may use it to
> disqualify anything that proves them wrong...
> > And often not.
> > Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
> To do what? To denounce the hyppocrisy and ignorance of some people
> here...
I was asking Tony D who's pushing him to call a spade a spade.
Because only sometime you have to call it that way. The rest of the time you
don't have to. You call it by other name.
> > Where I have heard that before ? ...
> Of course you have heard it before...It's just your ears are filled up
> with SQL crappola to hear it...
Whose ears ? What SQL have to do with it. I haven't learned SQL in school
if that is of any interest to you.
> > >Sometimes admittedly
> > > Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> > > someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> > > talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> > > can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> > > with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> > > earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades
and
> > > the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> > > those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
> A confused reasonning...
> BB insults (due to a lack of good manners) is not the worse part of the
> debate...His incoherence and hyppocrisy is...He pretends one thing
> (like educate you, help you) and in the next thread he insults you
> which means he lacks coherence...I observe that and I do not need to
> put a word on it (spade BS)...I describe a situation I observe
> period...
> > Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
> BS, I have used terms, defined terms reexplained terms again and
> again..Some people get it right away but certainly not paradign blinded
> idiots
Maybe I was not talking about you. Maybe I was talking about someone else.
> > > > I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> > > > understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive
insults...
> > > Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
> That was my initial thought but I was wrong...
> I reread the entire thread and presented him with documented and
> succint ways of proving that some allegation he made were irrelevant
> and wrong...No answer...Therefore, I draw a conclusion...
> > If someone turns up it will be turned down.
> >
> > http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
> >
> > Garcon! Another turn!
> >
> > >If someone turns up asking leading questions
> >
> > What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
> > >or pushing an
> > > opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> > > over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> > > well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> > > it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
> > Who's agenda ?
> You better stick to jokes...Seems you are better at it than RM and data
> management ;)
With whom are you talking ? That joke was not mine. I translated it for you
and replaced some ethnic groups to make sense to you. That's all.
You don't know me to make that kind of statements. Ah, you used the word
"seems" and ';)' .
And by the way: what make you think RM and data management are not a joke
these days ?
Cimode
x wrote:
> This is a railroad station.
I believed this was a board of discussion about database.theory...?
> > > > > A lot of what?
> > > > > A lot of BS....From what I observed he brings mainly disrespect,
> > > > > insults and close mindedness...His attitude makes this board a
> sterile
> > > > > field of eternal "OO VS RM people"
> > > > > and "you are saying nonsense"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
>
> > You have to be careful with such concept...Some people may use it to
> > disqualify anything that proves them wrong...
>
> > > And often not.
It's because such a question is difficult to answer that if one does
not bring evidences, people should refrain from calling spade ANYBODY.
This kind of behavior should be supported by sound reasonning, logic,
knowledge and proofs NOT blind belief in a few ignorant barking dogs.
>
> > > Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
>
> > To do what? To denounce the hyppocrisy and ignorance of some people
> > here...
>
> I was asking Tony D who's pushing him to call a spade a spade.
> Because only sometime you have to call it that way. The rest of the time you
> don't have to. You call it by other name.
>
> > > Where I have heard that before ? ...
>
> > Of course you have heard it before...It's just your ears are filled up
> > with SQL crappola to hear it...
>
> Whose ears ? What SQL have to do with it. I haven't learned SQL in school
> if that is of any interest to you.
Given the amount of proofs I have provided to expose false reasonning
and ignorance, *some* people just seem to lack the cognitive abilities
of making sense of more-than-3-prepackaged words such as *crank*,
*idiot*, *fuck yourself* ...They clearly divert attention on people
like me when they can not adress issues proving them wrong. My guess
is that this is the result of practising and seeing SQL through RM too
many years...
> > > >Sometimes admittedly
> > > > Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> > > > someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> > > > talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> > > > can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> > > > with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> > > > earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades
> and
> > > > the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> > > > those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
>
> > A confused reasonning...
> > BB insults (due to a lack of good manners) is not the worse part of the
> > debate...His incoherence and hyppocrisy is...He pretends one thing
> > (like educate you, help you) and in the next thread he insults you
> > which means he lacks coherence...I observe that and I do not need to
> > put a word on it (spade BS)...I describe a situation I observe
> > period...
>
> > > Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
>
> > BS, I have used terms, defined terms reexplained terms again and
> > again..Some people get it right away but certainly not paradign blinded
> > idiots
>
> Maybe I was not talking about you. Maybe I was talking about someone else.
I can talk of what I observed. I interacted with some idiots and lost
valuable time explaining concepts through sound demonstrations...They
do not give a damn...What interests them is self promotion....
Therefore, I created a Fraud Exposal Wall for some a FEW to quote their
ignorance and incoherence...Letting people making an opinion of
themselves of whom they are actually talking to...
(check out Keith Duggar, Fraud Exposure Wall for some quote of his).
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/a32a4f2f9c0ccbaa
It is a beautiful example of somebody getting busted and trying to
divert attention form a real coherent argumentation by self promoting
and bragging...Loosing all control, he totally looses control and makes
a total fool out of himself insulting...That's what happens when you
expose frauds...
> > > > > I have confronted him with simple arguments he did not even
> > > > > understand...I had to reexplain a thousand times to receive
> insults...
>
> > > > Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
>
> > That was my initial thought but I was wrong...
> > I reread the entire thread and presented him with documented and
> > succint ways of proving that some allegation he made were irrelevant
> > and wrong...No answer...Therefore, I draw a conclusion...
>
>
> > > If someone turns up it will be turned down.
What remains are proofs and facts...I did prove my point. All he did
was insulting when he realized I disagreed with him...That's how
ignorants react when exposed to truth...They either divert discussion
to irrelevant subject or they get so mad to be ridiculed that they
start insulting you non stop.
> > > http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
> > >
> > > Garcon! Another turn!
> > >
> > > >If someone turns up asking leading questions
> > >
> > > What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
>
> > > >or pushing an
> > > > opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> > > > over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> > > > well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> > > > it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
>
> > > Who's agenda ?
>
> > You better stick to jokes...Seems you are better at it than RM and data
> > management ;)
>
> With whom are you talking ? That joke was not mine. I translated it for you
> and replaced some ethnic groups to make sense to you. That's all.
> You don't know me to make that kind of statements. Ah, you used the word
> "seems" and ';)' .
That was actually a compliment with an encouragement to educate
yourself more about RM and not do like BB's barking dogs...
"Humor is to intelligence what a spear is to a sword"
> And by the way: what make you think RM and data management are not a joke
> these days ?
If you think RM which is nothing but applied Mathematics in data
management science is a joke then you have to assume Mathematics is a
joke. Do you think Mathematics is a joke?
x
> x wrote:
> > This is a railroad station.
> I believed this was a board of discussion about database.theory...?
It WAS a NEWS group about database.theory , I suppose. :-)
Just a station for me. :-)
> > > You better stick to jokes...Seems you are better at it than RM and
data
> > > management ;)
> > With whom are you talking ? That joke was not mine. I translated it for
you
> > and replaced some ethnic groups to make sense to you. That's all.
> > You don't know me to make that kind of statements. Ah, you used the word
> > "seems" and ';)' .
> That was actually a compliment with an encouragement to educate
> yourself more about RM and not do like BB's barking dogs...
This is what I'm doing these days.
> "Humor is to intelligence what a spear is to a sword"
Thank you, I suppose. It is said that Vlad Tepes used a lot of spears. :-)
> > And by the way: what make you think RM and data management are not a
joke
> > these days ?
> If you think RM which is nothing but applied Mathematics in data
> management science is a joke then you have to assume Mathematics is a
> joke.
> Do you think Mathematics is a joke?
My mind is open to this possibility. :-)
Can you prove it is not ?
Maybe I should have said a BIG joke ?
I used to laugh a lot when solving math problems.
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> > I dont' bother defining prepackaged idiotic concepts and ideas that are
> > totally irrelevant to technical exchanges.
>
> But it was you who said "When I point out that I am boorish ?" (June
> 16, 8:18pm).
I stated that as response to Gene Wirchen-BULLSHIT to whom I wasted
time exposing my intensions as he called me boorish just B4, I
demonstrated he was calling me boorish for an unfounded reason...As a
question and a mocking part, I used a pun question *When I point out
that I am boorish ?* meaning *When I point out the hyppocrisy you
consider me booorish*
Didn't you bother to find out what you were pointing out
> about yourself ? Isn't that a bit superficial ?
Superficiality is determined by evidences..
> > Why don't you assume your position through explicit communication?
> > What a hypocrisy!!!
> >
>
> Where was the hypocrisy in using the sarcastic term "charm school" for
> your utterly charmless demeanour ?
Cut the BS...
> > Don't you read!!
> Sometimes, I wish I didn't.
Then be my guest...
> > Distates is not relevant..
>
> Very true. Like and dislike are very cheap. Best not be governed by
> them.
Best be governed by reason and intellectual honesty..Qualities you have
not demonstrated so far...
> > I exposed his and some of his peer's
> > incoherence through sound arguments and proofs...
>
> In the thread I read, you blustered in a similar way to you do on this
> thread when someone didn't agree with you. There wasn't much coherence
> to your "arguments".
That's because of the hierarchical structure making hard to follow
track of event chronologically...As I take the time to respond to ALL
BB's barking dogs...
> > I do not give a damn about the person...
> >
>
> Perhaps "boor" really is on the mark then: "a person with rude, clumsy
> manners and little refinement."
That's to speak a language more familiar to you.
> > > everything you complain about Bob doing, you have done yourself, and in
> > > even worse tones.
BS...I mainly insulted statements rather than people (Ex: What an
idiotic statement!!) which is not equivalent to say *you are an idiot*.
and ask legitimate questions such as *are you mentally impaired* when
I can't understand when somebody does not get a clue of what I am
talking about after several explanations...
If some people feel insulted it's not my business...It tends to
indicate that they are indeed idiots and that is why they would react
with anger...
Strong tones prevent people from thinking and building coherent
sentences...I certainly have not used the strongest tones here...
> > BS prove it...I have taken the time to respond to your insults and
> > arguments one by one...That's a mark of respect you probably do not
> > even deserve!!!
> >
>
> My only argument is that you behave in exactly the manner you
> disapprove of when Bob behaves that way; that makes you some kind of
> hypocrite. You've never responded to that argument, apart from in your
> conduct.
You opinion about me has absolutely no interest except to you...You
should now understand that I do not really care of what other people
think...
I have responded to each of you single argument but I will now stop as
you are clearly demonstrating intellectual dishonnesty....(Not
convinced check the arborescence)
> > I have not disqualified you as nonsense to evade your stupid posts...
>
> Why thank you.
Because I do what I state, I respond to people's nonsense to expose
them.
> > I did not call you a crank, a troll, or whatever BS prepapackaged term
> > you can put on people to disqualify what *SEEMS* wrong to you...
> So far, I haven't called you a crank, a troll, or any other "BS
> prepapackaged term" (whatever that is). I *have* called you a boor and
> a hypocrite.
Which is no better considering that
> > However I have pointed out to you your incoherence,
>
> Nope.
Lost cause.
> > your superficiality
>
Lost cause.
>
> > and ignorance of RM concepts...
> >
>
> So far in this thread, you have said diddley-squat about RM concepts to
> me. So you can't possibly have pointed out my ignorance of them.
When refering to ignorance, I was not refering specifically to you but
to BB's barking dogs which I exposed on the Fraud Exposal Wall...At my
knowledge, you are not on it...not yet...
> > Jeez who am I talking to?
>
> Calm down, mate. You'll burst something.
I am fine thanks...For temperamental people engaged in self
promotion....
Cimode
x a écrit :
> "Cimode" <cim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150730032.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > x wrote:
>
> > > This is a railroad station.
>
> > I believed this was a board of discussion about database.theory...?
>
> It WAS a NEWS group about database.theory , I suppose. :-)
> Just a station for me. :-)
Well not for me...
> > > > You better stick to jokes...Seems you are better at it than RM and
> data
> > > > management ;)
>
> > > With whom are you talking ? That joke was not mine. I translated it for
> you
> > > and replaced some ethnic groups to make sense to you. That's all.
> > > You don't know me to make that kind of statements. Ah, you used the word
> > > "seems" and ';)' .
>
> > That was actually a compliment with an encouragement to educate
> > yourself more about RM and not do like BB's barking dogs...
>
> This is what I'm doing these days.
>
> > "Humor is to intelligence what a spear is to a sword"
>
> Thank you, I suppose. It is said that Vlad Tepes used a lot of spears. :-)
>
> > > And by the way: what make you think RM and data management are not a
> joke
> > > these days ?
>
> > If you think RM which is nothing but applied Mathematics in data
> > management science is a joke then you have to assume Mathematics is a
> > joke.
> > Do you think Mathematics is a joke?
>
> My mind is open to this possibility. :-)
Then you should try to explain that to BB's barking dogs...
> Can you prove it is not ?
No. The question is biased...it neither can be proved right or
wrong...That question is about BELIEF not REASON therefore I answer
with a Frens proverb
"Colors and Tastes are not to be discussed"
> Maybe I should have said a BIG joke ?
> I used to laugh a lot when solving math problems.
I am afraid that traduces *some* form of insanity...;)
Cimode
skills...I would pay money to see you speak my native
language....LOL!!!
Keith H Duggar
> It is good seeing people making fun of somebody's non native language
> skills...I would pay money to see you speak my native
> language....LOL!!!
I would pay money for you to stop speaking mine.
Cimode
Youhouuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! I assumed right....
Here's the Xenophobic part(were waiting for it to declae itself)....
First, make fun of foreign people inability to speak your language
because you can't even follow them on other language...
Then, exhorting them to leave your house by not speaking your
language...a pure defensive mechanism...
Well sorry sir, if I will speak as much as I want and bust your
racist-politically correct arse...
YES...Keith Duggar is indeed a fascist overlord....It confirms the
profile I have assumed of him yesterday in the Fraud Exposal
Wall...Brutal, stupid, fearful of not belonging to a group, no
personality, self promoting, no general culture, no foreign
language.......ideal candidate for Xenophobia...
Enjoy the decription.....
***************************************************************************************
An interesting epidermic responder...This guy could literally kill for
his group, willing to do anything to prove his value to his comrades.
A total non personality ignorant...Very limited knowledge of the little
he read...Totally ignorant of RM concepts...
Some of his quotes are masterpieces of RM ignorance but not only...His
general culture is close to zero...
***************************************************************************************
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!
Gosh I would PAY to see your red face after reading this....Then, run
fast as I can so that you don't pull out on me your gun!!!
LOL!!! (My knee hurts!!!)
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> I haven't bragged about my English anywhere. (Indeed, I've made a
> couple of shocking typos in this thread.) And how do you know that I
> only speak one language ? From what did you deduce that ?
Just for statistics...Was I right to assume you just speak one
language? and that you only had two years of French in high schooll you
totally forgot about??? Common let me know....
Keith H Duggar
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > It is good seeing people making fun of somebody's non
> > > native language skills...I would pay money to see you
> > > speak my native language....LOL!!!
> >
> > I would pay money for you to stop speaking mine.
>
> Youhouuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! I assumed right....
[snip wacko claims of xenophobia, racism, etc]
Do you have any sense of humor?
In any case, make no mistake, my comments are directed
solely to you and you alone. Your totally bizarre, entirely
odd over-reaction the last several days, clearly shows that
you are sui generis even among cranks and VI.
> LOL!!! (My knee hurts!!!)
You really should stop jerking it then.
-- Keith -- Fraud 6 -- Jackboot Engineer
Cimode
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > > Cimode wrote:
> > > > It is good seeing people making fun of somebody's non
> > > > native language skills...I would pay money to see you
> > > > speak my native language....LOL!!!
> > >
> > > I would pay money for you to stop speaking mine.
> >
> > Youhouuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! I assumed right....
>
> [snip wacko claims of xenophobia, racism, etc]
caught...
> Do you have any sense of humor?
So, now that you get caught showing your real face, you want to do
buddy-buddy and share jokes with me, just after insulting me non stop
like a bull headed racist you are.
I do not *hang out* with people like you...Facists overlords just make
me want to puke...
> In any case, make no mistake, my comments are directed
> solely to you and you alone. Your totally bizarre, entirely
> odd over-reaction the last several days, clearly shows that
> you are sui generis even among cranks and VI.
So know I am the one overeacting....(I could feel up the th entire
thread with your insults)
//
So you become analytical now because I made you shake, you idiot after
portraying a full tank of insults....What an incoherent idiot...Oh
sorry!! an incoherent racist idiot...
> > LOL!!! (My knee hurts!!!)
>
> You really should stop jerking it then.
Speaking of humor, your joke is so lame, even your delluded racist sick
spirit is more stable !
GO renew your KKK subscription and get the hell out of my sight!
Tony D
for more mindless entertainment with The Cimode Show...
Cimode wrote:
> It's not first degree...
Pardon ?
> I stated that as response to Gene Wirchen-BULLSHIT to whom I wasted
> time exposing my intensions as he called me boorish just B4, I
> demonstrated he was calling me boorish for an unfounded reason...As a
> question and a mocking part, I used a pun question *When I point out
> that I am boorish ?* meaning *When I point out the hyppocrisy you
> consider me booorish*
>
Well, that made sense. Naaah, just pullin' yer leg. It's gibberish.
> Superficiality is determined by evidences..
>
In which case, at this point I'd suggest you quit while you're merely
losing.
> > Where was the hypocrisy in using the sarcastic term "charm school" for
> > your utterly charmless demeanour ?
> Cut the BS...
Where is the BS in that ? Are you seriously suggesting that you're
conducting yourself in a way that could be described as anything other
than utterly charmless ?
> Then be my guest...
>
As I've said before, I can resist everything except temptation.
> Best be governed by reason and intellectual honesty..Qualities you have
> not demonstrated so far...
Oh, I don't know. I've been pretty honest with you. I think you're a
hypocritical boor. This thread stands as pretty good evidence on which
to call that a reasoned judgement.
> That's because of the hierarchical structure making hard to follow
> track of event chronologically...As I take the time to respond to ALL
> BB's barking dogs...
>
No, generally it's because a) you've had a problem with quoting in
context and b) you aren't as good at English as you think; your
sentence construction is regularly awful, and sometimes it's somewhere
between very difficult and impossible to discern what you're talking
about. Regular pepperings of "barking dogs", "how practical" etc etc
make it boring, as well as difficult. But, I have persevered.
> That's to speak a language more familiar to you.
>
That's rather condescending. You're not really in a position to
condescend to anyone right at this moment.
> BS...I mainly insulted statements rather than people (Ex: What an
> idiotic statement!!) which is not equivalent to say *you are an idiot*.
> and ask legitimate questions such as *are you mentally impaired* when
> I can't understand when somebody does not get a clue of what I am
> talking about after several explanations...
>
This is just such frankly arrogant nonsense it's untrue. First "you
*mainly* insulted statements" - so, you accept that you *have* insulted
*people* then ? Well, that's an advance of sorts. Next, because someone
else can make neither head nor tail of your garbled meanderings, you
suggest that *they* are mentally impaired because *you* can't make your
point properly ? Dear oh dear ...
> If some people feel insulted it's not my business...It tends to
> indicate that they are indeed idiots and that is why they would react
> with anger...
>
At this point, I'm not angry. Far from it, I think this thread should
be filed under "Unintentional Comedy with Cimode".
> Strong tones prevent people from thinking and building coherent
> sentences...I certainly have not used the strongest tones here...
>
I suggest you stop using strong tones then. And I don't think anyone
else has enquired of anyone else whether they are either mentally
deficient or mentally impaired. That's all been you.
> You opinion about me has absolutely no interest except to you...You
> should now understand that I do not really care of what other people
> think...
>
Oh, that's come through loud and clear already chum.
> I have responded to each of you single argument but I will now stop as
> you are clearly demonstrating intellectual dishonnesty....(Not
> convinced check the arborescence)
Arborescence ? Have you been chewing a dictionary again ? What have
trees got to do with this anyway ? (Oh, and how am I "clearly
demonstrating intellectual dishonnesty (sic)" ?)
> Because I do what I state, I respond to people's nonsense to expose
> them.
>
What, are you a stripper in your spare time ?
> Which is no better considering that
> > > However I have pointed out to you your incoherence,
> >
> > Nope.
> Lost cause.
And the crowd says "Ohhh ....."
> > > your superficiality
> >
> Lost cause.
And the crowd gasps "Ahhhh ...."
> >
> > > and ignorance of RM concepts...
> > >
> >
> > So far in this thread, you have said diddley-squat about RM concepts to
> > me. So you can't possibly have pointed out my ignorance of them.
> When refering to ignorance, I was not refering specifically to you but
> to BB's barking dogs which I exposed on the Fraud Exposal Wall...At my
> knowledge, you are not on it...not yet...
>
Oh right. You responded in a post reply *to* me, directed *to* me, but
you weren't talking *to* me. That's very coherent. As someone else said
on this thread : "Jeez who am I talking to ?" I think you should try
working that out for yourself.
> I am fine thanks...For temperamental people engaged in self
> promotion....
No no, myspace.com is where people go for self-promotion. This is
purely for laughs (at least, this particular thread is). Now, get back
to chewing the carpet and leave that dictionary alone - your stomach
can't digest paper anyway ...
We return you to your irregularly programmed schedule ...
Tony D
> Do you have any sense of humor?
>
Come on now, after reading this thread what do you think the answer to
that could possibly be ?
- Tony (Fraud Wannabe)
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> language? and that you only had two years of French in high schooll you
> totally forgot about??? Common let me know....
Not the point; did you base this ASSUMPTION on BELIEF rather than
REASON ? If REASON, what was your EVIDENCE ? Come on now, it's time to
come up to proof ...
(See, I can refuse to answer the question and USE extraneous CAPITALS
too ! I'm learning something from you anyway...)
Tony D
> Buy a disctionnary and widen you vocabulary spectrum to put prepackaged words
> best BB and his dogs...
Rather than spend the money to add to my collection of dictionaries
(favourite being a 1950s New English Reference, with a short but
excellent section on grammar), I decided to study the lexicon of
Cimode, in which there are, sadly, only a few words and phrases which
turn up with monotonous regularity. These include :
"prepackaged" (extra syllables optional, at users request)
"BS" (the long-form "BULLSHIT" has recently made an appearance, so top
marks there)
"ignorant"
"idiotic"
"incoherence"
"epidermic" (unusual usage; tread carefully)
"barking dogs" (oft. in combination with "Bob Badour" or simply "Bob")
"contemptuous"
"hypocrisy" (in various spellings)
"hypocrite" (in various spellings)
"mental deficient"
"mentally impaired"
"damn"
"practical" (typical usage: "how practical")
"arborescence" (well and truly out of left field that one, if you'll
pardon the pun)
Recent additions have taken on a somewhat darker tone :
"racist" (multiple spellings available)
"xenophobic"
"fascist" (multiple spellings available)
"overlord"
Note that these words may be combined in pretty much any order to
produce new-yet-old terms.
Tony D
"crapola" (additional 'p' optional; pres. to accentuate irritation)
Tony D
x wrote:
> Huh !?!? A reaction or a retraction ?
>
A reaction to Cimode's "interpretation" of why people might disagree
with him and/or agree with Bob, based on a small amount of skewed
evidence. I didn't think he was being particularly fair.
> > Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
>
> And often not.
>
Indeed, often not. Most of the time, you can discuss things pleasantly,
and bring the discussion to a close with everyone understanding the
others point of view, and if necessary changing their opinion on
something.
> Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
>
Sometimes, no amount of discussion will resolve a debate, especially if
one of those taking part insists on refusing to accept overwhelming
evidence or simple facts that contradict their position. In those
instances, you simply have to resort to plain language ("calling a
spade a spade").
> Where I have heard that before ? ...
>
Many times and many places, although in slightly different ways,
probably.
> >Sometimes admittedly
> > Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> > someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> > talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> > can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> > with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> > earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades and
> > the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> > those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
>
> Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
>
Often not; if you replace "spade" with "relational DBMS" and "shovel"
with "SQL DBMS" in what I wrote above, hopefully you'll see what I was
talking about.
> > Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
>
> Or maybe not, 'cause he has not shown that.
>
Sometimes, you just recognise the same argument or debate coming up
worded in a slightly different way. Or sometimes, someone believes they
have a major insight that others have already tried and discounted. And
sometimes, the major insight is simply irrelevant to the discussion at
hand. (For example, I really don't care about RAM controllers; and when
I get to see a process space on a Unix machine, I see a huge long flat
chunk of memory, with no additional structure to it. So how an MMU
deals with physical memory to present that big flat contiguous space is
simply irrelevant and uninteresting to me.)
> 0x2B | 0x2B that's the question.
>
Shouldn't there be a ! in there somewhere ? ;)
> If someone turns up it will be turned down.
>
I used "turns up" in the sense of "arrives", if that changes how you
understand what I wrote. Too colloquial of me.
> http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
>
> Garcon! Another turn!
>
You didn't watch Eurononsense this year, did you ? I lost interest when
the Poles didn't get into the final ... the big guy rapping was a star
in the making :)
> >If someone turns up asking leading questions
>
> What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
>
A question that is asked in such a way that the person asking it gets
the answer they want. In law, a leading question guides a witness
towards a particular answer, and is therefore expressly forbidden.
> >or pushing an
> > opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> > over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> > well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> > it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
>
> Who's agenda ?
A private agenda that is different to the public one. For example,
publicly "I want to understand the relational model", but privately (or
not-so-publicly) "I think we should really ditch the relational model".
Tony D
x wrote:
> > "Humor is to intelligence what a spear is to a sword"
>
> Thank you, I suppose. It is said that Vlad Tepes used a lot of spears. :-)
>
When he made a decision, people really got the point :)
> My mind is open to this possibility. :-)
> Can you prove it is not ?
> Maybe I should have said a BIG joke ?
> I used to laugh a lot when solving math problems.
Never laughed at maths. Cried a bit though ;)
Cimode
make a point...Glad for you....
It's just that it's a real shame you have so little *imagination* (a
new word for your list) that you must *paraphrase* a post I have made
about BB's howling cats to illustrate their limited day to day
vocabulary...(please give me your *cats dont' howl ethnocentric
marshall like sermon)... I was right about you saying...You are
probably the dummiest of all...You don't even deserve to be put on the
FEW (Fraud Exposal Wall).
You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family...
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> It's just that it's a real shame you have so little *imagination* (a
> new word for your list)
It's just a shame you didn't realise I was mocking your lack of
imagination in your phraseology, really. Maybe it was a little subtle
for you ?
> that you must *paraphrase* a post I have made
> about BB's howling cats to illustrate their limited day to day
> vocabulary...(please give me your *cats dont' howl ethnocentric
> marshall like sermon)...
Look, "s/barking/howling/g; s/dogs/cats/g" doesn't count as imaginative
additions to your limited lexicon, ok ? You really must try harder. If
you must stick with "dogs", you could try "running dog lackey", with
"fascist imperialists" following on in close attendance. That would
open up a whole new vein of abusive terminology for you.
> I was right about you saying...You are
> probably the dummiest of all...You don't even deserve to be put on the
> FEW (Fraud Exposal Wall).
>
Awwwww.... never mind. Once I've answered your post on definitions of
relations etc. you might revise that. And have you wikipedia'd the
lambda calculus yet ?
> You worthless piece of
> well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> totally forgotten by their family...
>
You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
Cheer up mate !
x
> I didn't get round to answering this before; apologies.
>
> x wrote:
> > > Sometimes, you just have to call a spade a spade.
> >
> > And often not.
> >
> Indeed, often not. Most of the time, you can discuss things pleasantly,
> and bring the discussion to a close with everyone understanding the
> others point of view, and if necessary changing their opinion on
> something.
It is funny.
I looked at the definiton of spade in an english dictionary and I saw a
different definition on spade that the one I would have expected.
To me spade was a kind of sword.
I thought we always should call a spade a spade or at least to try our best.
> > Who's pushing you to do that ? :-)
> Sometimes, no amount of discussion will resolve a debate, especially if
> one of those taking part insists on refusing to accept overwhelming
> evidence or simple facts that contradict their position.
>In those
> instances, you simply have to resort to plain language ("calling a
> spade a spade").
"calling a spade a spade" means to speak things as they are, or so I was
reading somewhere.
> > >Sometimes admittedly
> > > Bob will call it a bloody spade, and get rather exasperated that
> > > someone still hasn't grasped the concept of "spadeness" and wants to
> > > talk lots and lots about how they want to rename shovels as spades and
> > > can't see what the problem with that is and hey I've been successful
> > > with projects by using shovels and calling them spades and I've been
> > > earning decent money since nineteen-canteen using shovels as spades
and
> > > the difference between a shovel and a spade is only of interest to
> > > those theory guys and ... and .. and ...
> >
> > Maybe they were just talking about different things ...
> >
> Often not; if you replace "spade" with "relational DBMS" and "shovel"
> with "SQL DBMS" in what I wrote above, hopefully you'll see what I was
> talking about.
I see.
> > > Maybe he understood them better than you think ?
> >
> > Or maybe not, 'cause he has not shown that.
> >
> Sometimes, you just recognise the same argument or debate coming up
> worded in a slightly different way. Or sometimes, someone believes they
> have a major insight that others have already tried and discounted. And
> sometimes, the major insight is simply irrelevant to the discussion at
> hand. (For example, I really don't care about RAM controllers; and when
> I get to see a process space on a Unix machine, I see a huge long flat
> chunk of memory, with no additional structure to it. So how an MMU
> deals with physical memory to present that big flat contiguous space is
> simply irrelevant and uninteresting to me.)
Ok. That patterns are called cliche
> > 0x2B | 0x2B that's the question.
> >
> Shouldn't there be a ! in there somewhere ? ;)
Yes. Do you know the result ?
a) 0|~0
b) 0xFF
c) none of the above
d) all of the above
> > If someone turns up it will be turned down.
> >
>
> I used "turns up" in the sense of "arrives", if that changes how you
> understand what I wrote. Too colloquial of me.
>
> > http://romania.ido.ro/tornero-lyrics-6/
> >
> > Garcon! Another turn!
> >
> You didn't watch Eurononsense this year, did you ? I lost interest when
> the Poles didn't get into the final ... the big guy rapping was a star
> in the making :)
No. I didn't.
> > >If someone turns up asking leading questions
> >
> > What's a leading question ? A heavy one ?
> >
> A question that is asked in such a way that the person asking it gets
> the answer they want. In law, a leading question guides a witness
> towards a particular answer, and is therefore expressly forbidden.
Ok. I'm not a lawyer. Thanks.
> > >or pushing an
> > > opinion or pursuing an agenda whilst simultaneously repeating over and
> > > over that they're just asking questions and would like to understand,
> > > well they can expect to get called on that. Reasonably enough. And if
> > > it goes on over an extended period, anyone's patience wears out.
> >
> > Who's agenda ?
> A private agenda that is different to the public one. For example,
> publicly "I want to understand the relational model", but privately (or
> not-so-publicly) "I think we should really ditch the relational model".
Thank you for taking the time to write.
erk
> Well, I left this misbegotten thread alone for a while, but it's time
> for more mindless entertainment with The Cimode Show...
Probably this has been said before, but still I can't resist: is it
pronounced "commode"?
> > I stated that as response to Gene Wirchen-BULLSHIT to whom I wasted
> > time exposing my intensions as he called me boorish just B4, I
> > demonstrated he was calling me boorish for an unfounded reason...As a
> > question and a mocking part, I used a pun question *When I point out
> > that I am boorish ?* meaning *When I point out the hyppocrisy you
> > consider me booorish*
>
> Well, that made sense. Naaah, just pullin' yer leg. It's gibberish.
hahahahaha
Cimode continues to amaze me. I have no clue whether "troll" is the
right word, or if there even is a word. It's just sheer entertainment.
To demonstrate such sheer determination in the face of evidence of
cluelessness, and to muster such sheer willpower and verbiage in the
defense of said cluelessness, is on occasion breathtaking.
- erk
Pickie
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > You worthless piece of
> > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > totally forgotten by their family...
> >
>
> You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
>
> Cheer up mate !
I agree with you, Tony. That was quite vile. (PS Commode, "quite" is
used here to mean "to an extreme", or "positively")
I reckon he spits when he talks, too. Seems the type.
x
>
> "Tony D" <tonyis...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1150769801.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I didn't get round to answering this before; apologies.
> It is funny.
> I looked at the definiton of spade in an english dictionary and I saw a
> different definition on spade that the one I would have expected.
> To me spade was a kind of sword.
> I thought we always should call a spade a spade or at least to try our
best.
The shovel:
http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/gl_equipment_hand_tools/article/0,1785,HGTV_3582_1370673,00.html
The spade:
http://www.whatisfencing.com/article.htm?itemid=16&WIF101=a3f315d8caf9c5407ba4115180cf904e
The "spatar" is that wooden back support
http://www.ifurn.com/whitewood_1CO4-502.html
The shoulder blade is called "spata"
"Spada" and "spata" are not the same thing even sometime their meaning might
be overlapped.
> > You didn't watch Eurononsense this year, did you ? I lost interest when
> > the Poles didn't get into the final ... the big guy rapping was a star
> > in the making :)
If you want some nonsense try this guy: http://www.ionesco.org
Or this guy http://www.aboutromania.com/bacovia1.html :-)
Cimode
justify when they deport people to justify they are some kind of
unpleasant breed of humanity...
Your statement makes you a good candidate for nazi propagandist
regime...
Every action provokes a reaction...You should know that you
copycon-personality-less-moron...
> Cheer up mate !
Tony D
[ Yes, I'm leaving this quoted piece of text in intentionally; and I'll
keep it here in every reply on this thread. ]
> > > You worthless piece of
> > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > >
> > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
> Humanity needs sometimes passive reflexive idiots people like you to
> justify when they deport people to justify they are some kind of
> unpleasant breed of humanity...
>
I have no idea exactly what this sentence is supposed to mean, as once
again it topples into gibberish. But I think it's implying that I would
somehow support deportations. In which case, this is yet another of
your own assumptions based on belief rather than reason.
> Your statement makes you a good candidate for nazi propagandist
> regime...
>
And your statement, and let's just quote that again in case anyone
misses it or forgets it - "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." suggests you could easily be an
active participant in such a regime, if you can make it without pause
and then attempt to defend it later. Once you begin regarding humans as
something other than human, it becomes progressively easier to do
inhuman things to them.
> Every action provokes a reaction...You should know that you
> copycon-personality-less-moron...
>
Some reactions are of the knee-jerk, excessive and disgusting variety.
And what exactly is a "copycon-personality-less-moron" ? Have you been
at the dictionary again ?
> > Cheer up mate !
Cimode
I leave "tending-the-other-cheek-concepts" concept to BELIEVERS, I am
not.
You insult my education stating that I spit on people. This is my
last warning.
Tony D
> Pickie wrote:
> > Tony D wrote:
> > > Cimode wrote:
> > <snip>
Let's preserve this; a splendid monument to Cimode's clear reasoning
and deductive abilities :
> > > > You worthless piece of
> > > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > > >
To which, in fairness, I responded :
> > > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
Let's continue :
> I leave "tending-the-other-cheek-concepts" concept to BELIEVERS, I am
> not.
>
No, you're just a rather vile example of humanity.
> You insult my education stating that I spit on people.
Even educated people can spit when they talk; it's not an "either-or"
situation. I have no idea whether you spit when you talk or not.
> This is my last warning.
Or what ? Is this supposed to be a threat of something ?
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> [ Yes, I'm leaving this quoted piece of text in intentionally; and I'll
> keep it here in every reply on this thread. ]
>
> > > > You worthless piece of
> > > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > > >
>
> > > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
>
> > Humanity needs sometimes passive reflexive idiots people like you to
> > justify when they deport people to justify they are some kind of
> > unpleasant breed of humanity...
> >
>
> I have no idea exactly what this sentence is supposed to mean, as once
> again it topples into gibberish. But I think it's implying that I would
> somehow support deportations. In which case, this is yet another of
> your own assumptions based on belief rather than reason.
For a few sentences, you have proved you are focusing subject on my
person again.
> > Your statement makes you a good candidate for nazi propagandist
> > regime...
> >
>
> And your statement, and let's just quote that again in case anyone
> misses it or forgets it - "You worthless piece of
> well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> totally forgotten by their family..." suggests you could easily be an
> active participant in such a regime, if you can make it without pause
> and then attempt to defend it later. Once you begin regarding humans as
> something other than human, it becomes progressively easier to do
> inhuman things to them.
Your are the one speaking of *unpleasant breed of humanity*. What's
next? an *inferior breed of humanity*?
...It's amazing how words say a lot about who people are....
> > Every action provokes a reaction...You should know that you
> > copycon-personality-less-moron...
> >
>
> Some reactions are of the knee-jerk, excessive and disgusting variety.
> And what exactly is a "copycon-personality-less-moron" ? Have you been
> at the dictionary again ?
I am positive you did get the point.
> > > Cheer up mate !
I am not your mate.
I do not want to establish a bond with you of any kind. I don't like
people like you. So stop talking diverting subject on me and focus on
data management subjects. You severely need it.
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Pickie wrote:
> > > Tony D wrote:
> > > > Cimode wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> Let's preserve this; a splendid monument to Cimode's clear reasoning
> and deductive abilities :
>
> > > > > You worthless piece of
> > > > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > > > >
>
> To which, in fairness, I responded :
>
> > > > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
of humanity, I shall deport you elsewhere...
Anybody who thinks they are types of humanity is a prefascist. Let me
try this once again louder so that you can hear....How about
STOP TALKING ANALYZING PEOPLE AND LET'S TALK ABOUT DATA THEORY!!
> Let's continue :
>
> > I leave "tending-the-other-cheek-concepts" concept to BELIEVERS, I am
> > not.
> >
>
> No, you're just a rather vile example of humanity.
I am what I am...Your moral judgment has no value or interest to me. I
leave that to my family and people I respect or admire. You're none of
these.
So What's next? What are you going to do about it? Deport me?
> > You insult my education stating that I spit on people.
>
> Even educated people can spit when they talk; it's not an "either-or"
> situation. I have no idea whether you spit when you talk or not.
Yes but you write it.
> > This is my last warning.
>
> Or what ? Is this supposed to be a threat of something ?
To say stop diverting subject on me and get back to discuss data
theory. Yes it is a warning that I will not engage in anymore
exchanges with you if they are person focused. I did the same with BB
when I told him that I would not respond any more to his insult posts.
Tony D
[ Yes, I'm leaving this quoted piece of text in intentionally; and I'll
keep it here in every reply on this thread. ]
> > > You worthless piece of
> > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > >
> >
> > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
> >
Let's continue :
> No on observed facts...
>
> For a few sentences, you have proved you are focusing subject on my
> person again.
>
After the comment you made above, it's quite clear that you are
focussing the subject on personalities.
> Your are the one speaking of *unpleasant breed of humanity*. What's
> next? an *inferior breed of humanity*?
>
Now that's quite astonishingly revisionist; I have said nothing about
"breeds of humanity". I have said that *you*, as an *individual* are a
vile example of humanity. For reference, the two sentences in question
are :
"You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you
?"
and
"No, you're just a rather vile example of humanity."
I leave to a reader to decide for themselves if there were racial
overtones or subtexts in either of those sentences. And I stand by both
of them.
> ...It's amazing how words say a lot about who people are....
>
I believe when I made exactly this point to you elsewhere in this very
thread, you attempted to dismiss it as "hypocrisy" and "BS". So which
is it Cimode ? Come on, this is yet another instance where you're going
to have to come up to proof. You've singularly failed on that every
time I have asked you a firm question on this thread.
> > Some reactions are of the knee-jerk, excessive and disgusting variety.
> > And what exactly is a "copycon-personality-less-moron" ? Have you been
> > at the dictionary again ?
> I am positive you did get the point.
>
I'm still waiting for a definition of a
"copycon-personality-less-moron", or is this just another question
you're going to fail to answer.
> > > > Cheer up mate !
> I am not your mate.
"Be thankful for small mercies" was never more appropriate.
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
Let's preserve this; a splendid monument to Cimode's clear reasoning
and deductive abilities :
> > > You worthless piece of
> > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > >
To which, in fairness, I responded :
> > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
> Cut the crap....What's next ? As you are a rather *unpleasant* example
> of humanity, I shall deport you elsewhere...
>
What, you think I should allow you to *forget* that ? I don't think so.
> Anybody who thinks they are types of humanity is a prefascist.
The only one here bringing up "breeds" and deportations is you. So
who's the prefascist ?
> Let me try this once again louder so that you can hear....How about
>
> STOP TALKING ANALYZING PEOPLE AND LET'S TALK ABOUT DATA THEORY!!
>
OK; when you refrain from statements like : "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." then we'll let this thread drop.
> I am what I am...Your moral judgment has no value or interest to me. I
> leave that to my family and people I respect or admire. You're none of
> these.
>
And do you express sentiments like : "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." in the presence of your family
and those you respect or admire ? I hope by now you've got the message
that that statement was so disgusting it's going to follow you around
for a while. You said it - you live with it.
> So What's next? What are you going to do about it? Deport me?
>
Nope. But I won't let you forget it either.
> Yes but you write it.
>
Did I ? I think I said "I have no idea whether you spit when you talk
or not." You really must pay more attention. This basic inability to
follow threads doesn't engender confidence in your expressed areas of
expertise.
> > Or what ? Is this supposed to be a threat of something ?
> To say stop diverting subject on me and get back to discuss data
> theory.
I'll be happy to get back to data theory, when you abandon statements
like "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..."
> Yes it is a warning that I will not engage in anymore
> exchanges with you if they are person focused. I did the same with BB
> when I told him that I would not respond any more to his insult posts.
Presumably you were too busy sending insulting posts of your own ?
Cimode
humanity*..What is a *breed of humanity*? Show me a breed of humanity?
If you think I am an unpleasant breed of humanity, who are the other
member of that group? According to what objective criterias do you
define them as members?
> > > Some reactions are of the knee-jerk, excessive and disgusting variety.
> > > And what exactly is a "copycon-personality-less-moron" ? Have you been
> > > at the dictionary again ?
> > I am positive you did get the point.
> >
>
> I'm still waiting for a definition of a
> "copycon-personality-less-moron", or is this just another question
> you're going to fail to answer.
Already answered that...See above for analysis of you attempts...
> > > > > Cheer up mate !
> > I am not your mate.
>
> "Be thankful for small mercies" was never more appropriate.
>
> > I do not want to establish a bond with you of any kind. I don't like
> > people like you. So stop talking diverting subject on me and focus on
> > data management subjects. You severely need it.
Point closed. I do not want to engage in any further person debate
with you. Only data management...
Cimode
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> Let's preserve this; a splendid monument to Cimode's clear reasoning
> and deductive abilities :
>
> > > > You worthless piece of
> > > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > > >
>
> To which, in fairness, I responded :
>
> > > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
>
> > Cut the crap....What's next ? As you are a rather *unpleasant* example
> > of humanity, I shall deport you elsewhere...
> >
>
> What, you think I should allow you to *forget* that ? I don't think so.
>
> > Anybody who thinks they are types of humanity is a prefascist.
>
> The only one here bringing up "breeds" and deportations is you. So
> who's the prefascist ?
first? The fact of using such statement is a premice to define groups
of humanity. You are an example of WHAT kind of humanity?
> > Let me try this once again louder so that you can hear....How about
> >
> > STOP TALKING ANALYZING PEOPLE AND LET'S TALK ABOUT DATA THEORY!!
> >
>
> OK; when you refrain from statements like : "You worthless piece of
> well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> totally forgotten by their family..." then we'll let this thread drop.
>
> > I am what I am...Your moral judgment has no value or interest to me. I
> > leave that to my family and people I respect or admire. You're none of
> > these.
> >
>
> And do you express sentiments like : "You worthless piece of
> well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> totally forgotten by their family..." in the presence of your family
> and those you respect or admire ? I hope by now you've got the message
> that that statement was so disgusting it's going to follow you around
> for a while. You said it - you live with it.
LOL LOL LOL...No comment...
> > So What's next? What are you going to do about it? Deport me?
> >
>
> Nope. But I won't let you forget it either.
Go cry to mommy...BOUHOUOU?
> > Yes but you write it.
> >
>
> Did I ? I think I said "I have no idea whether you spit when you talk
> or not." You really must pay more attention. This basic inability to
> follow threads doesn't engender confidence in your expressed areas of
> expertise.
Say what you mean and mean what you say...You keep reexplaining your
intentions.
> > > Or what ? Is this supposed to be a threat of something ?
> > To say stop diverting subject on me and get back to discuss data
> > theory.
>
> I'll be happy to get back to data theory, when you abandon statements
> like "You worthless piece of
> well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> totally forgotten by their family..."
>
> > Yes it is a warning that I will not engage in anymore
> > exchanges with you if they are person focused. I did the same with BB
> > when I told him that I would not respond any more to his insult posts.
>
> Presumably you were too busy sending insulting posts of your own ?
No. Now let's get back to data management theory....
As the Tony D does not get it, I will use the following acronym BDMT
for Back to Data Management Theory....
Tony D
[ Yes, I'm leaving this quoted piece of text in intentionally; and I'll
keep it here in every reply on this thread. ]
> > > You worthless piece of
> > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > totally forgotten by their family...
To which I responded :
> > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
> >
But before we continue further, I'm going to leave this sentence here :
it's quite important.
> > > Your are the one speaking of *unpleasant breed of humanity*. What's
> > > next? an *inferior breed of humanity*?
> > >
Note the first occurrences of the word "breed", from Cimode. Now note
the rebuttal I offered him next :
> >
> > Now that's quite astonishingly revisionist; I have said nothing about
> > "breeds of humanity". I have said that *you*, as an *individual* are a
> > vile example of humanity. For reference, the two sentences in question
> > are :
> >
> > "You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?"
> >
> > and
> >
> > "No, you're just a rather vile example of humanity."
> >
> > I leave to a reader to decide for themselves if there were racial
> > overtones or subtexts in either of those sentences. And I stand by both
> > of them.
> >
Tally-ho.
> Proofs are what you write...
No, it's time for you to educate yourself a little more; "come up to
proof" is a legal term; a witness fails to "come up to proof" if they
attempt to prove a matter but fail to do so. So come on, it's time for
you to come up to proof; start offering proof of the various
assumptions you've been making from belief rather than reason. Anyway,
let's on to the next sentence :
> I have not used the term *breed of humanity*..
Now, you may be having problems with your short-term memory, but I
think you'll find you did; you then presumably didn't read the rebuttal
I gave to your frankly absurd reinterpretation of either of my
sentences. (I kept the quotes at the top of this post so you can check
if you like.) You do know the rules about conversion of existential and
universal quantifiers, don't you ? Even then, your expansion of "Cimode
is an unpleasant/vile example of humanity" to "breeds" simply doesn't
follow, does it ? Come come now. Reason, not belief, remember ?
> What is a *breed of humanity*? Show me a breed of humanity?
Since you started using the term, I think you should define it.
> If you think I am an unpleasant breed of humanity, who are the other
> member of that group? According to what objective criterias do you
> define them as members?
>
You're asking questions of yourself.
> Already answered that...See above for analysis of you attempts...
>
Did you ? Where ?
> Point closed. I do not want to engage in any further person debate
> with you. Only data management...
In which case, why ask questions in your posts, and continue posting
elsewhere on this thread ? You're not very strong on consistency, are
you ?
Tony D
> Tony D wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >
Let's preserve this; a splendid monument to Cimode's clear reasoning
and deductive abilities :
> > > You worthless piece of
> > > well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
> > > totally forgotten by their family...
> > >
To which, in fairness, I responded :
> > You really *are* a rather unpleasant example of humanity, aren't you ?
Onwards !
> Do you maintain that you have not been using *example of humanity*
> first?
I did indeed; I said you are a vile and unpleasant example of humanity.
Are you disputing that evaluation of you ?
> The fact of using such statement is a premice to define groups
> of humanity.
Even were I to accept this dubious supposition, the group would number
precisely 1, that individual being Cimode.
> You are an example of WHAT kind of humanity?
>
One that doesn't say things like "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." to other human beings.
> LOL LOL LOL...No comment...
>
Presumably, that means you are content to stand as the person who
uttered "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." on a newsgroup then.
> Go cry to mommy...BOUHOUOU?
>
Why would I go crying to mommy ? You're the individual acting
shamefully. It seems you are rather proud of your hypocritical
boorishness.
> Say what you mean and mean what you say...
I assume this means you stand by "You worthless piece of
well...nothingness-vaccum-filled-empty-shell...People like you die
totally forgotten by their family..." with full vigour ?
> You keep reexplaining your intentions.
Nope; I keep pointing out to you why I asserted that you are a
vile/unpleasant example of humanity. You haven't said or done anything
that would change that assessment, such as offer an apology, or accept
that you were grossly excessive in what you said. Not that I expect you
will, but you never know.
> No. Now let's get back to data management theory....
Once you stop, we'll go back to it. Keep the thread going, and I'll
keep reminding you of your hypocritical boorishness.
Cimode
> Since you started using the term, I think you should define it.
>
> > If you think I am an unpleasant breed of humanity, who are the other
> > member of that group? According to what objective criterias do you
> > define them as members?
> >
>
> You're asking questions of yourself.
>
> > Already answered that...See above for analysis of you attempts...
> >
>
> Did you ? Where ?
>
> > Point closed. I do not want to engage in any further person debate
> > with you. Only data management...
>
> In which case, why ask questions in your posts, and continue posting
> elsewhere on this thread ? You're not very strong on consistency, are
> you ?
you in the last posts, it was not deserved at such intensity but at a
lesser intensity. I ackowledge and apologize on that last point only.
The last point was my fault not yours (even though you provoked). My
english has betrayed me once more is my only excuse. Happy? now
BDMT!!!!
Tony D
Cimode wrote:
> My english has betrayed me once more is my only excuse. Happy? now
> BDMT!!!!
Thank you. Now, hopefully we can bury this whole misbegotten thread in
a lead casket somewhere and forget about it.
erk
> Your statement makes you a good candidate for nazi propagandist
> regime...
Can anyone recall whether we demonstrated Godwin's Law before now, or
is this post the one?
- erk