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

[Noah Gibbs]

--- Robert Forshaw <iouswuoibev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

  You know that Erwin's one of the very best DGD programmers around,
right?  Like, he's certainly in the top three sources of DGD
information other than Felix (at least on the list).

  You're welcome to decide he's selling you short and that he just has
no clue about the depth of your genius.  But be careful disrespecting
him.  There aren't many people further up the chain to appeal to.

> >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.

  I think "completely irrelevant" is a bit strong.  You're talking
about access control to functions, and there are some cute tricks you
can do along roughly these lines with static functions if you're
careful.

> >[...]
> >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' ?

  Yup.  However, as long as he's on topic for the list (not necessarily
your original post), he's still on firm ground.  If he follows one of
your posts in drifting from your original topic and goes farther, he's
still doing something pretty reasonable.

> >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.

  Actually, it's just that he believes he's allowed to discuss topics
other than your original one.  Since that's true, it's a reasonable
belief.

  However, I don't think anybody would debate that you're more aware of
the topic of the original post than anybody else here.  You seem
painfully aware of it, to the point of considering any further
discussion on semi-related topics to be entirely inadmissible.

> Also, it's sort of ironic that you'd
> declare your 
> individuality by immitating my words.

  Plus it's ironic that you declare your independence in order to
suppress speech, and follow possible insults up with definite insults. 
Looks like a good day for irony.  By the way, there's only one "m" in
"imitating".

> >
> >Have a nice day. :)
> 
> I suggest you look up condescending in the dictionary, I think you'll
> find 
> that's what you are.

  While I don't want to say Erwin's not condescending (I'll let him
make that call), I feel compelled to share a quote from www.m-w.com:

Condescension:
1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an
inferior



=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd