Nikon FDUtility
in [Scanners]
|
From: Marjolein Katsma on 18 Feb 2006 15:14 Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:k1qbv1h7qh20e182h5d4rncuh6vg3l3nno(a)4ax.com: > Well, that's contradictory, then. By your own admission: > > On 15 Feb 2006 12:34:10 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> > wrote: >>I did consider the relational model Not contradictory at all - what I *actually wrote* was: > I did consider teh relational model and rejected it as a poorer "fit" > to how a file system with a nested directory structure works. Which indicates I was considering it as a model of the *current* (hierarchical) file system. And found it not a good fit (whiel I found a hierarchical database model *was* a good fit. You're quoting grossly out of context with even partial phrases instead of quoting a full phrase. That won't get us anywhere at all. So I'll ignore the rest. -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html
From: Don on 19 Feb 2006 09:44 On 18 Feb 2006 20:14:27 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >>>I did consider the relational model > >Not contradictory at all - what I *actually wrote* was: > >> I did consider teh relational model and rejected it as a poorer "fit" >> to how a file system with a nested directory structure works. > >Which indicates I was considering it as a model of the *current* >(hierarchical) file system. And found it not a good fit (whiel I found a >hierarchical database model *was* a good fit. It doesn't matter. The *same* key question still stands: !=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=! >You're quoting grossly out of context with even partial phrases instead >of quoting a full phrase. That won't get us anywhere at all. Because it was totally irrelevant and gets us on these even more irrelevant tangents. The key is not what happened *after* you considered it. The key is that you considered it by deny me the same right. Why is it OK for you to consider it but when I just submit it for consideration you jump all over me? Don.
From: Marjolein Katsma on 22 Feb 2006 09:10 Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:2s0hv1dptiug4pvrdtdirahauq686bospn(a)4ax.com: >>You're quoting grossly out of context with even partial phrases >>instead of quoting a full phrase. That won't get us anywhere at all. > > Because it was totally irrelevant and gets us on these even more > irrelevant tangents. The part of the sentence you did not quote was essential to its semantics. You partial quote completely turned that on its head. Maybe you considered the whole sentence irrelevant but you did not say so - what you said with your partial quote was that somethng I id *not* say was irrelevant. I think you need to refine your quoting skills a bit - quoting is good, quoting everything is bad, but quoting so little that it changes meaning is even worse. > The key is that you considered it by deny me the same right. > > Why is it OK for you to consider it but when I just submit it for > consideration you jump all over me? I'm not denying you anything. -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html
From: Don on 22 Feb 2006 13:19 On 22 Feb 2006 14:10:28 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >The part of the sentence you did not quote was essential to its >semantics. No, it was totally irrelevant to the question - which question you failed to quote and once again avoided answering! So, instead of getting bogged down in distractions, here's the question again and for the *third* time: !=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=! Don.
From: Marjolein Katsma on 28 Feb 2006 17:49
Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:801pv151mk73d7b25edp5u32eflt9b6tn1(a)4ax.com: > !=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so > surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=! Because I considered it *as a model of the current hierarchical file system* and rejected it because I found a hierarchical database a *better model of the current file hierarchical system*. I am not surprised you submit the relational model at all - but you submit it for something *else*. What I am surprised about is that you do *not* apparently consider anything at all as a model for the *current hierarchical file system* - before even discussing a new system - which makes disussion in terms of database models largely irrelevant. There is no basis for comparison. :) -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html |