The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)

On Feb 8, 8:49 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ggro...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The first thing I will put on record is your convenient omission of
your claim
about what the OP wrote. It is therefore fair IMHO to assume that the
following is true (as I stated) :

you started your usual deluded tree rubbish
- the OP responded to inform you they are talking about graphs
- you made a claim about what the OP wrote, which is shown to be untrue

I did NOT bring up hierarchies. The opening posting brought it up.
Thus, your implication that I "saw" hierarchies were none were
described nor mentioned is wrong.

I will summarise for posterity (as google etc have the details on
every posting
made for this thread) :

1. You started your usual deluded rants about trees.

2. The OP told you the following :

"DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."

IOW, he is thinking about *graph* hierarchies (hence the reference to
DAGs).

3. I posted to inform the OP that 1 is typical form for you.
4. You then posted claiming the following :

"The original author was not necessarily talking about OO, but
classification trees. I did not imply tree/hierarchy, it was
EXPLICITLY stated by the author of the message."

5. I reposted the OPs original posting, and the text did not contain
the words
"tree" , "classification tree" at all. For which you have been offered
the
opportunity to reply.

6. Rather than respond to 5, you now make the following claim :

"I did NOT bring up hierarchies. The opening posting brought it up.
Thus, your implication that I "saw" hierarchies were none were
described nor mentioned is wrong."


So 1 is your usual deluded ranting.
2 and 3 made it clear the OP is not talking about trees.
You made a claim in 4 which was shown untrue by 5. Therefore you are a
*liar* .

Rather than face up to the facts of 4/5, you attempt to reword 4 as
6, and claim
that I have implied things based on that. As you did not originally
write 6, I
cannot have stated or implied anything relating to something that was
not actually
written.

So as far as Usenet goes, you display the traits of a disingenuous,
cowardly liar.

It is bad enough that you are unable to construct a succinct cogent
debate to
argue your point (which actually has some merit) . But to expect
comp.object to
endure both that and your unsavoury traits is *not on* .


Regards,
Steven Perryman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Taking the pledge
    ... There are also regional hierarchies, ... "Posting" refers to posting a new article ... Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world ... Newsgroup, be sure to CROSSPOST the article rather than ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Indented Bill of Materials
    ... After some poking around the Internet and reading Joe Celko's book on Trees ... I have made some progress getting a Product Structure into ... because it is going to build hierarchies. ... that is INSERT INTO #Temp. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
  • Re: Brimstones was: Fifty two reasons to leave the EU
    ... put anyone off posting here. ... first time some Brimstone butterfly caterpillars. ... Purging Buckthorn, which isn't local, but is the food plant of brimstones. ... Later I looked at one of the trees after seeing some ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: OT Dogs and Cats (test run)
    ... > nzlstar to the rescue again - thanks Jeanne. ... I am new to posting pics on the internet - usually just email them. ... >> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. ... a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...... ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.quilting)
  • Dual CS505-1
    ... is a 16 pole synchronous design. ... No trees were harmed in the generation of this posting ... Just a few electrons may have been disturbed ...
    (uk.rec.audio)