[DGD] Re: My idea for the DGD driver - validate

[Robert Forshaw]

>From: Erwin Harte <harte at is-here.com>
> >            I am making an assumption here, based on how he has treated 
>me
> > in the past, and I believe I'm entitled to make this assumption, but I
> > think he was just seeking an oppertunity to sound condescending towards 
>me.
>
>You're entitled to make assumptions.  You would be wrong, however.
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, only a novice doesn't know what 'private' and
> > 'static' are.
>
>As far as I'm concerned you're a novice on this list and in the first
>few weeks you've worked very hard on confirming the impression that
>you're a novice with DGD and possible LPC.  As a result I don't think
>it was unreasonable for me to assume you hadn't realized the
>possibilities of private and static functions.

I don't think a novice could conceive or iterate an idea such as the one I 
presented, but then considering you failed to comprehend what my post was 
all about on first glance, I can see why you took me for being clueless.

>I do apologize for not reading the 100+ line email carefully enough in
>the middle of a work day and as a result missing that you had in fact
>mentioned the concept of private functions yourself, and then
>dismissed them as unnecessary or inadequate.

It wasn't unnecessary or inadequate, it was completely irrelevent. You 
failed to acknowledge that.

>
>[...]
> > The topic was not 'keep arguing that 'static' and 'private' are relevent 
>to
> > my post,
>
>Not trying to be condenscending here, but you are familiar with the
>concept of topic-drift in discussions, yes?

Yes - are you familiar with the concept of 'off-topic' ?

>
> >                                                             To clarify,
> > anything that isn't about my validation idea, or the fallabilities of
> > masking call_other, is probably off-topic, and you shouldn't post it.
>
>To use words very similar to your own:
>
>     I don't remember you being assigned the position of topic
>     master.  We are all individuals so you are only speaking for
>     yourself.  You are wrong in this statement because I don't agree
>     with you.

I am apparently more aware of what the original post was about than you are, 
since you went off-topic. Also, it's sort of ironic that you'd declare your 
individuality by immitating my words.

>
>Have a nice day. :)

I suggest you look up condescending in the dictionary, I think you'll find 
that's what you are.

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd