Sandman
In article <1gnn991n4adteu1vca77i4t98n51gqlcg1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

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

Eric Stevens
The problem is that properly framed neither an objection nor a question. I used the words you used. Now you say I should have used something else. So then should have you.

Sandman
Well, since we're being literal - you used "software development", I used "software developing" - so where does that leave us?

As I said - the trolls last resort - nitpicking details instead of staying on topic. You have to take my words literally since that's the only way for you to create an argument. This is what I said:

"something he doesn't understand (software developing)"

I never claimed that Tony had said the word "software developing" verbatim since that's not my claim. I said he talked about software developing (which is true) and he didn't understand it (which is also true).

You took this to mean that I was the one that had started to talk about software development, and when you realized it was your troll buddy that had, your only choice was to take the phrase literally. because admitting to an error? Nooooo!

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
Let's try again but this time using 'IP' = Internet Protocol.

Sandman
Which is something entirely different that what we have been discussing.

Eric Stevens
1. It's a Protocol. 2. It describes something, but not any scrap of software or hardware.

Yet people implementing TCP/IP have to follow the IP protocol. Just as in Tony's example people backing up his hypothetical computer have to follow his backup protoocol.

Sandman
Sure, that's STILL not substantiation for your claim:

"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'.

That remains as unsubstantiated since the time you made the claim. You have NOT supported your claim that I (or nospam) "properly" understand the meaning of "protocol". That remains an empty claim to this day.

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
You are being dense. You have been told over and over again.

Sandman
You are now outright lying, Eric.

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.

Eric Stevens
Your use of the word protocol as meaning software is quite wrong.

Sandman
Ah, another claim from you! Now you have to quote me saying that "protocol means software"

Just CLAIMING that I've said that doesn't mean that I've actually said it, you know. In the real world, you have to support your position.

As an explicit claim from me - I have never said that the word protocol means "software". This is a pure invention on your part.

See - when you make stuff up on the spot, your lies are easy to expose. If your claims had any relation to reality, you would actually quote the origin! Then I would be more than helpful to point out your misunderstanding, but as it is now - all I can point out are your outright lies about me and what I've said.

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.

Eric Stevens
You used those words. Now you are trying to claim they are not relevant.

Sandman
I didn't use the words "software development", that was you, Eric.