Re: Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)
CChris wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> > CChris wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16293.htm
> > > http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m16309.htm
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
You forgot to insinuate that I'm eating small children for breakfast.
> _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.
There was no "method", and I didn't wait for any links to die. You did
not post valid links to your concerning posts from the start. I'm sorry
that I'm not responsible for your failings.
It is incredible, how you are trying to distort _almost everything_.
You are about to completely disqulify yourself for any serious discusson.
> Please read this
Wow, now you managed to post two valid links! Congragulations.
>
> 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
I can't see an objecttion to my concerning suggestion in the these posts.
However, it is not up to me, but up to Rob and/or the community to make
a new decision.
> Another objection: you rejected on your own a routine that was in earlier
> proposals,
> not because smeone disagreed with it,
My posts with the regarding suggestions dekiberately started with words
such as: "This is my current proposal ...". Do you know what the word
"my" means? Evereyone else could and can post her/his own suggestions, too.
> 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
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
