Cor Ligthert said:
With your previous message was something strange for me, when I answered it,
the quoting lines where gone, so I had to add all > again and changed the
text even more times than normally, I saw afterwards as well some unreadable
text.
Righto.
In a short line, I have not any discussion with Tim, so there is no need for
you to do his advocasy.
If any one poster insults another and gives incorrect information, I
see no reason why I *shouldn't* comment on that - or why anyone else
shouldn't.
You did, I can show you that, however not in this thread. But I am glad to
hear that it is not your intention and I do not start showing this again, it
is enough now.
Um, I really don't do that, and haven't done that.
When people start helping me against other regular (by instance you) and it
is with flaming messages and I know those people from other newsgroup, I
tell them that I can do it alone and that it is not a personal fight.
If I thought I'd in any way encouraged people to join the thread just
to attack you, I'd stop that immediately. I didn't and I wouldn't
however.
That is why I told "the Context", the customers for dotNet programs will
have/know that.
I think that's an assumption. A lot of users don't know what .NET is
and shouldn't really have to, beyond "something I need to run this
program I'm interested in".
(And as addition from me, those who want to have programs for free would
have to download the framework, but those are mostly very well known on
Internet and have fast connections)
Some do, some don't.
Do you think that in the case of your parents is no solution?
No - but I think it *is* a legitimate cause for concern. If there are
two programs which accomplish roughly the same thing, but one requires
an extra 23MB download, many users (myself included!) would probably go
for the one which doesn't require the extra download.
It's not a showstopper for most cases, but it *is* a point against
..NET.
I did not, when you had done that I had used more definitive words, you
started showing me that it was a part of the Framework, which I am all the
time telling in this thread and therefore not quoted, because there was
nothing to disagree for me.
You wrote in a message replying to me:
<quote>
You was telling that a Net program could run with only the CLR
installed and that the rest was not needed.
</quote>
Now, I never said that at all. You've been demanding that people
apologise for misrepresenting their words, and yet you did exactly that
when you wrote the words quoted above.
And I have all the time after that message said "extra" or pointed to that
message from me. I have nowhere disagreed the statement that a runtime is
needed,
You mean *after* your first post?
I disagreed all the time that the framework== a runtime.
But no-one was claiming that!
I have all the time disagreed that an "extra" runtime was needed.
And again, no-one was claiming that either.
I knew that maybe you can think nextime that most people involved in this
newsgroups do that as well.
That's not a benefit of the doubt you gave readers of Tim's website
though, is it?
That was in a very quick situation from all those messages. Extra only
because the context I wrote it had more text than your quoting behind the
comma of the text. You can disagree with me if that was completly clear and
than I most probably had agreed with you, therefore in a very early moment
that text "Extra".
Again, I really don't know what you're trying to say here - but as for
it being early in the thread, I can't find it from you before your post
at 14:15 (on Sept 23rd), after we'd had several posts back and forth.
In my way of argumenting is only the last statement valid and I stated it
directly when you told the first time that that text I used could be
confusing, what was very quick.
In normal debate, I believe it's better to explicitly state when you
retract a previous position. It makes things much clearer.
That was a text that by correcting went completly out of structure a new
one.
I have frequently told you that you threath me in your messages as a newbie
and try to catch me on words, that is anoying for me.
I don't treat you like a newbie. I treat you like I treat anyone else
answering questions. When I see someone give an answer I disagree with,
I post that I disagree with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Are you seriously suggesting I should let statements like the one in
your first post go without correction?
I try to threath everybody on the knowledge they show too me (where
in I make sometimes mistakes by the way).
I don't believe you do, actually. For instance, your reply to my first
post (with its rhetorical question) was:
<quote>
I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in
the word Common Language Runtime.
</quote>
My question was obviously rhetorical - and yet you treated it as if I
were a newbie posting it.
Yes, I make mistakes and have no problem to admit that, however you
make sometimes statements that are often so wrong, that it is almost
embarassing to answer those and you are not able to admit that.
I admit when I'm wrong. You should have immediately admitted you were
wrong when people (not just me, I hasten to add) called attention to
your mistaken first post. Instead, you chose to try to argue the point
and tried to make out that people had said things they hadn't.
You write "you've been the one insulting people in this thread, for the most
part, right from your very first post". I probably make a lot of writting
errors in your eyes, however i can read English as well as Dutch. This
intents that all my messages where insulting.
No it doesn't. It says that you're the one who's been doing most of the
insulting in the thread. That could be true even if you'd only written
a few insulting posts.
In my opinion it was only the first one that could be threathed as
that, although it was not directly meant as that. And some where I
threathed you with the same style of messages as you were sending to
me.
I think we'll have to disagree on that. I didn't start saying people
were lying, or that they'd invite others onto a thread just to flame
others, or that they'd deliberately put words into people's mouths.
Here's another post of yours, in its entirety. Are you going to deny
that it's insulting?
Let me state this clearly, you are reading too much into my
messages. I suggest you take some time off and get some rest.
One advise, print all what you wrote, go to a mirror and read your
messages. Then you find as last this text above. And than you look in
the mirror.
However probably that is for you again a message you don't understand.
Cor
What do you think what that message of you above is, a non insulting
one? And the thread is full of those from you.
If you thought my first response was an insult, you should admit that
your first response to me was also an insult - going against your point
about always treating people with the knowledge they show you.
I never claimed a runtime wasn't needed, I consequently only claimed that
the Net was not only a runtime. As you should know now from previous arguing
between us I never take side steps in discussions.
You *did* claim a runtime wasn't needed - in your first message! And
no-one has claimed that .NET is only a runtime. You've been arguing
against a straw man.
However now you stated that other message, I can say tht it is possible to
get a kind of runtime to run dotNet programs, but that is not what I suspect
that Tim means. Nick stated that in his message, I somewhere have the link
to that, however I assume you have that link as well.
Not sure what link you're talking about here, but I don't think it's
particularly important.
You can do that, however than not directly in a way, which looks if you try
to show that I do not know those simple things, it can be that I wrote it
not that well maybe, or that it was against a Newbie, where it is sometimes
better to use other words. (This is not the first time I write this too
you).
When you state things like "no runtime is needed to run dotNet
programs" you're the one making it look like you don't know those
simple things.
And am I than free to do it too you, without getting a complete C# gang on
my neck?
(No Gerry, Bill, Miha, Nick, Nick and others I do not mean you with the last
statement)
I'm neither going to encourage people to join threads nor discourage
them. But please *do* correct me when I make mistakes, and we can
either debate whether or not they are mistakes, or I'll just admit them
when I agree with you.
