Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:15:47PM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > right. even after 6 days you can't come up with any answer to over 70 lines
> > of argument in that message, so you retreat to the position of a coward and a
> > cretin - delete all but one flippant throw-away line and make a stupid
> > ad-hominem attack based on that.
>
> You call it a "flippant throw-away line", but for me it pretty much
> matches the tone of all of your messages that I've read on this subject.
that would be because you only bothered reading 1 line out of 70+.
> > PS: and, frankly, my opinion is worth a lot more than the opinions of lamers,
> > zealots, and cretins. i, at least, back up my opinions with evidence and
> > reasoning.
>
> Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody's got one and nobody wants to see
> the other guy's.
and opinions are different from arseholes because some are worth more than
others.
sure, everyone has a right to an opinion....but that doesn't mean that all
opinions are of equal merit. opinions from stupid, ignorant, or lazy people,
or opinions that aren't backed up with reason or evidence aren't worth much at
all. opinions that are supported only by cliche are probably worth least of
all.
> Proof by repeated assertion does not constitute "evidence and reasoning".
of course it doesn't. that's why i supply evidence and reasoning - it's there
even if you couldn't be bothered reading it.
> I see your argument as at least as zealous as your opponents, and no
you can hardly blame me for your inadequacies. it's not my fault that you're
too stupid or lazy to read or understand.
> I have nothing to add directly to the discussion because I think others
you have nothing to add.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: