From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:24:20 GMT

In <1992Dec11.222050.4413@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.192232.7874@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>No, much of our argument comes over my correct technical interpreation
>>of the word as opposed to your JOE.BAT interpretations.
>>

>It's not a blame, it's an observation that I am making.  Here is a hypothetical
>conversation (try to figure out who's who in the parody):

 [Parody deleted -- too bad the parody called JOE.BAT is still here.]

>Heheheeee.  Real funny, huh?

Real cute, and about on a level with the rest of your 'proofs'.

>>
>>>Reuse in your context has only relatively recently been coined.  I tend to
>>>use english when I'm attempting to use english.
>>
>>Well, that's probably a good idea when you're talking ABOUT English;
>>when you're talking in a technical field, you are much better served
>>to use the vocabulary and usage of the people in that field.
>>

>Hmmmm.  I thought that some people here may not know technical jargon...
>Some may be straight people just trying to learn a few things.  I see,
>my apologies, from now on, I'll speak words that only a minority of
>America speaks in contexts that only a minority of people understand.
>Now I see completely your animosity towards dictionaries.... dictionaries
>advocate the use of common English rather than technobabble.

Pleased to see that you're still hallucinating freely, Joe.  It sure
explains all those things you 'see'.  You're arguing about what
technical terms mean, but you don't want to use any technical terms.
Hmmm, now just what's wrong with that line of 'reasoning' . . . ?

>Brrraaaappp.  Wrong answer.  I've never bounced any mail (but you've bounced
>mine).  I see what you want to do: you want a PUBLIC WAR.  Well, I am
>not going to stoop to your level of name calling (there is a difference
>between saying "that's a dumb idea" and "you're a jackass").  

Brraaaaaappp.  Wrong answer.  I have no interest in continuing the
same sort of stupid discussion we had last time, when it was, I
believe, over the word 'best' in reference to operating systems.  I
have no interest in playing that sort of stupid game.  You are
obviously interested in playing stupid games.  Go play with yourself,
Joe.  I'm not interested.

>I've always tried to say something meaningful about the subject of computer
>science--and it seems your posts are always directed at simply shouting
>me down.  If you don't want to have valid debate about the subject, and
>your best contribution is simply "because I say so", then don't bother
>following up this article.

If you want to talk meaningfully about 'computer science', I suggest
you quit misusing the terminology of the field.  That would, to my
mind, be step one in your saying anything 'meaningful'.

>Direct your flames to /dev/nul

Good advice for you to have taken long ago.  Or is that another rule.
JOE.BAT must always have the last public word?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy