Re: Databases as objects
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Dec 2006 11:04:36 -0800
Patrick May wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Patrick May wrote:[ . . .]
Yes, I am rather fond of "nitty side-tracks" such as providing
evidence for one's claims. I can see how that would distract from
your "real issue" of spewing errant nonsense. Darn me. Darn me to
heck.
It is not my burden to show otherwise.
When you make positive claims, as you so often do in this
newsgroup, the burden of proof is indeed yours. You consistently fail
to meet this burden, typically retreating to "I was just voicing my
subjective opinion." when pushed hard enough.
And further, I don't see you getting on pro-OO asses when *they* make
informal little claims. In short, a DOUBLE STANDARD for your pro-OO
buddies. You ignore activities from them that when I do make me a "bad
evil troll".
Patrick
-T-
oop.ismad.com
.
- References:
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: topmind
- Re: Databases as objects
- From: Patrick May
- Re: Databases as objects
- Prev by Date: Re: Databases as objects
- Next by Date: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Previous by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Next by thread: Re: Databases as objects
- Index(es):