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

[Robert Forshaw]

>From: Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com>
>--- 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.

Well execuse me all to hell, I didn't realise I was dealing with such an 
exhalted individual. Of course, this automatically makes him exempt from any 
error and makes me wrong by default? Look, I don't care about what regard 
you hold him in, he still made an off-topic post based on a incomplete 
understanding of what my post was about, which I interpreted to be an 
affront to my intelligence. I don't believe he genuinely wanted to help me, 
because he has already made it clear that he doesn't like me, therefore I 
can only assume he was making a barely veiled attempt at trying to make me 
look stupid. I never said he was stupid, I said he was wrong, and his 'help' 
didn't apply. And he was. I've already explained it, read my reply to his 
original post again if you still don't understand.

>   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.

Fine, I'll concur with that. After all, I suppose since this all comes under 
the giant umbrella of 'DGD discussion' then I guess everything is relevant! 
Right?
This is the first time you mentioned anything about cute tricks. Also 
'roughly along these lines' sounds to me like your stretching the argument. 
Just face it; it wasn't directly applicable to my post. Erwin never 
mentioned cute tricks, he was just informing me about static and private. If 
you have something relevent to say about these cute tricks with static 
functions, by all means share. What Erwin had to say about static (and 
private) functions was an entirely different thing.

The rest of your post went on the premise that Erwin was simply 
participating in the natural and inevitable development of a discussion, and 
this is blatantly untrue. I'm tired arguing a case that should have been 
settled on my first response to his post. If you don't understand now, 
there's no use trying.

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

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