Sandman
In article <9eoda9p1obl69dd596l2oor0lfmm84m83g@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
Message-ID: <slrnl95tl4.ksa.mr@irc.sandman.net>25 Nov 2013 07:04:08 GMT:

"That's my interpretation of the term as well, that a "backup protocol" is something you execute manually.

Sandman
Finally Support! For thE FIRST TIME!!! It only took you a week!

Alas, obviously I have to ask you here - in what way am I using it incorrectly? It was Savageduck that described his backup protocol (which was manual) and I agreed with him. Please elaborate.

Note: Eric failed to point out why my usage of the word "protocol" was incorrect, meaning that his original claim remains a lie.

Eric Stevens
Message-ID: <slrnl96rtj.ll6.mr@irc.sandman.net>Date: 25 Nov 2013 15:40:37 GMT in its entirety.

Sandman
No, Eric. Quote where I am using the word incorrectly.

Note: Eric failed to point out why my usage of the word "protocol" was incorrect, meaning that his original claim remains a lie.

Eric Stevens
Message-ID: <slrnl98gue.u9i.mr@irc.sandman.net>Date: 26 Nov 2013 06:45:36 GMT

"I am pointing to the fact that you seem to be refering to both manual and automatic backup's as "protocols". Assuming you don't call it your "file copying protocol" when you copy a file, the term is valid and descriptive, but unsual to be used for an automatic process - which is why nospam assumed you were doing things "the hard way"; manually."

All subtly wrong and clearly understand that you have the wrong concept of protocol. There are others.

Sandman
You can't just quote me and say it's wrong - WHY is it wrong, Eric? I can't find a single usage in the above quote which is wrong. Tony seemed to use "protocol" both for automatic and manual backup routines, and I said that it's unusual to use the word "protocol" for something that is done automatically for you. Again - you can't just quote me - you have to actually call out exactly what the incorrect usage is and explain in what way I used the word incorrectly and what the correct usage was.

Note: Eric failed to point out why my usage of the word "protocol" was incorrect, meaning that his original claim remains a lie.

Eric Stevens
The crunch came when after I wrote in my Message-ID: <i35q99hq4evlt2q4cnieo9a6ug993cbq31@4ax.com>of Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:05:00 +1300

"Well, there's your problem. You think a protocol determines what a program does... Maybe that's why you were talking about the totally unrelated FTP before? You think programs are filled with developer-enabled protocols or something like that.

The word "protocol" isn't tied to programs at all. In fact, few would use "protocol" to anything software related unless you are in reference to that alternate definition of "protocol" that deals with *communication between computers*, like FTP or HTTP, or NNTP - all protocols, but not a fixed set of steps.

"What a program does" is defined by the code, which few would consider to be a "protocol" by any stretch of the imagination. "

Sandman
Yes? Eric - please don't humiliate yourself like this. You have to actually point out the incorrect usage and how it should have been used.

I am correctly pointing out above that a "protocol" does not determine "what a program does", which I've also explained to you many times.

Note: Eric failed to point out why my usage of the word "protocol" was incorrect, meaning that his original claim remains a lie.

Eric Stevens
... and you responded to four real world examples of protocols of which you are undoubtedly by writing - nothing at all. You completely ignored them.

Sandman
Contrary to you, I *AM* a programmer and have written many clients that use inetrnet protocols to communicate with services, like REST, FTP, NNTP, IRCD, SOAP and HTTP.

The RFC's does not tell my how to code anything, it tells me how my application has to behave, and I can code that in a number of different ways.

Eric Stevens
That's what I have been telling you from the beginning. Is it that only now do you understand, or is it only now that you admit to understanding?

Sandman
No, that's what *I* have been saying from the beginning. See, this is the problem when you lie so much, you have to invent a position for the other person that doesn't exist.

Eric Stevens
"The protocol is not the code; it is not the logic of the particular block of code; it is not any part of the program at all. It is a statement, definition, of what the code must do."

Sandman
This statement is still incorrect.

This is ignorance on your part, Eric, since you have NO experience with programming and you only look at this on a VERY superficial level, like with your black box analogy.

Eric Stevens
You didn't know at the beginning and you refused to learn and understand at the end. You are a fool and a rogue.

Sandman
Still waiting for that actual support, Eric.

Eric Stevens
You have just given it.

Sandman
Note: Eric failed to point out why my usage of the word "protocol" was incorrect, meaning that his original claim remains a lie.

Still waiting, Eric. Just admit that you misspoke and meant that it seemed to you that I used it incorrectly and that you can't actually find any evidence of me using it incorrectly and retract the statement and be done with it. Why do you keep humiliating yourself like this??