Google| Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2013-11-30 10:59 (2013-11-30 10:59) |
| Message-ID | <slrnl9jdpf.doc.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (13h & 2m) > Sandman Tony Cooper (5d, 4h & 52m) > Sandman |
In article <sihi995rtgvb3jmmmdp7j951aavsfpcjsa@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Tony Cooper Re: Paintshop and Corel 11/25/2013 <m3o699lcu5nkmjftqpss3pdj3bvv0mfkfg@4ax.com>Eric StevensSandmanSandman
You guys are trying to enforce your viewpoint with the use of classic troll methods, many which I have pointed out to you.An no - many times I can't understand what it is you guys are trying to say. Tony, for instance, have been contradicting himself a lot in this thread, mainly due to the fact that he is trying to apply a word ("protocol") to something he doesn't understand (software developing)Eric Stevens
There is a major part of your mistake. It has little to do with software development other than setting the objectives.
That's something you have to take up with Tony, he's the one that started to talk about it, trying to showhorn the word to fit his limited knowledge about it.
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.
"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.
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:Eric StevensSandmanSandman
Haha, I am jerking you around? Tell me, Eric - in what way did I jerk you around when you joined this thread and posted this unsubstantiated claim:Paintshop and Corel 11/28/2013 <s14d99tpigvh1jt1g2idvq17u7j8h16t9q@4ax.com>"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'."Eric Stevens
It's not unsubstantiated to the majority of people.
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.
I have several times showed you by both explanation and example where you are going wrong.
Eric Stevens Re: 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.
All you have done is deny that I am right.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?
Your refusal to accept any explanation does not amount to lack of substantiation by me.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.
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. 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.Eric StevensYou persistently demonstrate that you d't understand the meaning of 'protocol' as it is used in this situation. Otherwise you would not keep going on about 'software development'.Sandman
Ironic for you to claim that, since it was Tony that brought it up, not me.
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.
So - Eric, why are YOU going on about "software development"??
This remains true as of today.SandmanSandmanEric Stevens
How on *earth* can you claim that *I* am jerking *YOU* around here? You are the one who jumped in to the thread and posted an unsubstantiated accusation - something that *still* remains unsubstantiated! That's a *classic* troll move!
You substantiate it every time you engage in this argument.
Claiming this does not make it true Eric. It was *your* claim, and you've failed to substantiate it.
I know exactly what you mean by it - But what it does NOT is either of these:Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
You have ignored all the attempts to explain it to you.
There have been no attempts from you to explain the word "protocol" to me that have exposed any misunderstanding about the word on my part. Quite the contrary, it has exposed a gross misunderstanding of the word on your part - something I have *substantiated*, Eric. Your laymen "black box" nonsense further showed that you failed to understand it - as I have explined thoroughly.
I am sure there are pedople in this news group who know exactly what I mean by the 'black box' analogy.
1. Prove that I have misunderstood the word "protocol" 2. Define the word "protocol".
It does NEITHER of those things, which menas that in terms of substantiating your claim - it was just a lot of hot air.
They will also know what I mean by a transfer function. You will be doing yourself no good in their eyes in taking the stand you have, stubbornly refusing to consider the idea.Hey, I am not the one that doesn't understand the word "protocol", like you've shown that you don't, Eric. Your irrlevant diversions about a black box analogy does not help you, but rather illustrate your ignorance.
Apparently, Eric is quite afraid.Your determination to maintain that you are correct prevents you from learning anything new.Sandman
Correct about what? In contrast to what? Don't be so afraid to be specific, Eric.
-- Sandman[.net]
2013-11-16-
