Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 11/29/2013 09:30 (11/29/2013 21:30) |
Message-ID | <01kg99d1m6o4ovh1oesjhqq2m9nr2nlslj@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (1h & 16m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanI think you understand what I and Tony are trying to say very well.
In article <20gf995e7ip8uafb743h411j1fd4qn3nc5@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandman
The problem in YOUR case is that you cannot bring yourself to admit an error. This is a barrier to understanding.
Eric, the problem with YOUR post, is that you merely claimed something without supporting it. I won't admit to an error I've made merely on the base of you having claimed I made an error.I have no problem admitting to errors when I make them, as I've shown several times to you and other antagonizers here. I even do it when you or Andreas point them out without hesitation!Eric Stevens
Well then, go back and reconsider my 'black box' example. Protocols are outside the box. Software is inside the box. Protocols are not software. Software is not a protocol: it implements a protocol.
Eric, your entire laymen "black box" trivia does NOT substantiate your claim that I have made a mistake.SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
Sorry.
Apology accepted.
It was not an apology. It was a statement of regret.
I know, but it should have been an apology, since you came in to a thread making a claim that you failed to post any support for.
On the contrary. It's just that you have consistently misunderstood it.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim from Eric, color me shocked!Eric StevensSandman
Perhaps I should have put more effort into it but it never occurred to me that neither you nor nospam would understand what was being said.
And an ad hominem to boot - you sure now how to troll, Eric. Reasonable debate and factual posts - not so much.