OpenEuphoria

Re: Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)

• Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agriculture.go?v.?r> Sep 04, 2007
• 738 views

Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 
> CChris wrote:
> 
> > <a
> > href="http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16293.htm">http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16293.htm</a>
> > <a
> > href="http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16309.htm">http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16309.htm</a>
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm still waiting for _valid_ links to the two concerning posts.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > >    Juergen
> > 
> > If they are no longer available, try finding them on Topica, using the exp()
> > keyword, dates=sunday or monday 8 days ago.
> > Congratulations for your smartness.
> > 
> > CChris
> 
> I did not read any objections by you. It was you who wrote that you had
> objected against my proposal. So it's _your_ job to prove your claims.
> That means in this case providing valid links to the posts which contain
> the so-called objections.
> 
> HTH,
>    Juergen

_Your_ job was not to appropriate yourself the work of other people, which you
did.
_Your_ job was not to "forget" quoting parts of messages that raise objections,
which you have done, here and in the past.
_Your_ job is not to invent timetables and deadlines where there were not. And,
if you want some as part of an organised process, open them for discussion and
set them after they were agreed upon.

These ways shall not be allowed to continue.

Your method, whih consists into waiting for links to die rather than looking at
your address bar and inferring the right address, is simply eloquent.

Please read this
http://lists.topica.com/lists/EUforum/read/message.html?mid=1721155644&sort=d&start=57948
http://lists.topica.com/lists/EUforum/read/message.html?mid=1721156582&sort=d&start=57973

Another objection: you rejected on your own a routine that was in earlier
proposals, not because smeone disagreed with it, but because you tagged it
"clumsy". Sorry, but I don't know what this means. A routine may have bugs or
not, be fast or not, be flexible or not, be useful or not. All these are
verifiable - more or less. Your assertion is idiosyncratic and not verifiable.
This is yet another objection.

CChris