Sandman
In article <vmpk995qdsem68tmtprefovnlif181orei@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
A global text search of this news group shows that I am the only person who has used the words 'software development' in this thread. Certainly Tony has not. If you want to claim otherwise you will have to cite the relevant articles.

Sandman
Paintshop and Corel 11/25/2013 <m3o699lcu5nkmjftqpss3pdj3bvv0mfkfg@4ax.com>

"When the steps are determined by the developer, and written into the program, a protocol has been established so the action will always be the same. That's a protocol."

You're welcome.

Eric Stevens
Neither the words "software development" nor "software" are used in the article you have just cited.

Sandman
Semantics, the trolls last resort. What kind of developer do you think Tony was in reference to? Agricultural developer? Film developer?

Keep digging, Eric.

But *still* unsubstantiated by you, in relation to the claim you made. Refering to a supposed "majority of people" you claim to speak for has no relevancy at all. Substantiation for your claim has relevancy.

Eric Stevens
I have several times showed you by both explanation and example where you are going wrong.

Sandman
This is a lie, Eric. You have NOT showed any examples that have shown that I do not understand the meaning of the word "protocol". You have, however, shown ample of proof that you do not, such as this:

Paintshop and Corel 11/28/2013 <gpgf99pcs9vdum7gifh0bnjc18ti5pbfk0@4ax.com>

"The user's backup protocol for the single button backup might say (....) or 'I'm never going to use it'"

You have yet to show ANY substantiation of me not understanding the word "protocol". You have an empty claim that I don't understand it, but you have yet to point to any information *from me* that you can claim is an incorrect claim about the meaning of "protocol", as I just did about you above. See - above is *substantiation*. I claim that you don't know the meaning of the word "protocol" and then I substantiate that with a quote from you where you clearly display this fallacy.

Eric Stevens
If it was a class room I would chalk up a diagram setting out the hierarchy of instructions which define the difference between a protocol and a procedure (software implements a procedure to meet the requirements of a protocol). As this is not a classrroom I will have to leave you to think about this yourself.

Sandman
Sure, what you will NOT do, hwoever, is substantiate your incorrect claim about my knowledge about the word "protocol". As predicted.

Eric Stevens
All you have done is deny that I am right.

Sandman
Since you have failed to support your claim, there is nothing for me to deny - you have yet to make a valid claim, just an empty one. Why would I deny your ampty claims?

Eric Stevens
You failing to understand does not mean that I have failed to support my claim.

Sandman
So quote a post from you that:

1. Shows me misusing, misunderstanding or misapplying the word "protocol" 2. Shows you correctly using it.

Unless you can do both, you are a liar.

Eric Stevens
Your refusal to accept any explanation does not amount to lack of substantiation by me.

Sandman
No, your refusal to substantiate your claim amounts to lack of substantiattion from you.

You have yet to:

1. Establish something I said that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word "protocol"

2. Supply a correct definition or usage of the word in that context

I eagerly await your substantiation, Eric.

Eric Stevens
You have already the necessary explanations. If this were a class room with you having to sit an examination at the end of the year I would predict you will fail to answer this question correctly.

As it is, you are locked into a logical loop. In demanding examples which meet your requirementts you arefusing to understand the current use of the word 'protocol' until you understand the currrent use of the word 'protocol'.

Sandman
You failed to substantiate your claim again, Eric. All you offer is hot air and empty words.

You claimed that I don't know what "Protocol" means, yet you have provided NOTHING *from me* that is support for that claim from you. Your irrelevant and incorrect "examples" is *not* substantiation for your initial claim.

Ironic for you to claim that, since it was Tony that brought it up, not me.

Eric Stevens
Again, a global text search of this news group shows that I am the only person who has used the words 'software development' in this thread. Certainly Tony has not. If you want to claim otherwise you will have to cite the relevant articles.

Sandman
This is actually quite a bit funny. Your initial claim (still quoted above) was that *I* was going on about "software development", and I (correctly) pointed out that it was Tony that brought it up in the first place.

Eric Stevens
And I correctly pointed out that I was the first to use that term. You certainly talked about 'software developing'. I don't know who first introduced the subject of software developing/development.

Sandman
Now you've gone and seem to claim that the phrase should be verbatim just to shoot down my claim that it was Tony who brought it up (since he didn't use the exact phrase "software development") but what does that make out of your initial claim since you in the process have proved that.. neither have I.

So - Eric, why are YOU going on about "software development"??

Eric Stevens
Because you said (above) "he had started to talk about it".

Sandman
I.e. I never claimed he said "software development" verbatim. That's your troll diversion when you realized that it was your troll buddy that had started the topic you tried to pin on me.