5 ms·

> after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post I wasn't ignoring it - it was irrelevant. > This is very different

> after a couple of posts in which you try to ignore the first paragraph of eslaught's post I wasn't ignoring it - it was irrelevant. > This is very different from your initial claim No it isn't - I never claimed anything about eslaught's post, directly or indirectly, before that. > 'exponential' [...] it is still a claim that any such alternative would be inordinately more complex You repeat this as often as you can, like it's somehow your only real point here. And every time, I point out that I made no such claim. The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion. You haven't refuted that, even though I am amused that you keep trying. You also haven't changed my opinion, and as you can guess, I'm equally amused that you keep trying there too. Continue, please.

mannykannot 12y ago
No problem - these replies practically write themselves. I usually have a good idea what I am going to write even before I read your next evasion, and you keep giving me new material to work with. A case in point: your attempt to claim that eslaught's explanation is irrelevant. Of course, it is not - characteristically, you have offered no counter to my explanation of how it gets directly to the point - and of course you were not thinking it was irrelevant when you tried to argue that it is marginally more complicated than your approach. Only after I pointed out that by doing so, you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position, did it occur to you that it was a mistake, and decided that you would have been better off claiming that the explanation is irrelevant, even though that claim won't stand up. So instead of expunging one of your inconsistencies, you have added another case where you contradict yourself in attempting to rewrite the record. You also claim that this isn't what you were thinking of. Well, if you didn't think through the full scope and implications of what you were writing, that would be yet another mistake on your part, wouldn't it? We are, however, now entitled to wonder why, precisely, you think you can retrospectively rule this explanation out. As I wrote before, until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite that you will not attempt to rewrite later, there's no reason for me to post an explanation here.
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  You seem to start your posts with a lot of rhetoric, and then you repeatedly fall flat on your face with substance. > you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position > until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite My position has never changed, nor has my opinion. I still believe C++ was a useful analogy to the problem at hand (people misunderstanding Java references and pass-by-reference), and I still believe that any explanation involving machine addresses and stack frames that you could write (which you continue to refuse to do) would be more complex than comparing to C++. If you care to take your umpteenth failed swing at that, go right ahead. I already know what's going to happen though. "Failed attempt at rhetoric, misrepresenting of opponent's position, arguing against the failed position". I should advise you, though, that if you are going to keep wasting your own time flailing around in this thread, you should try to have a modicum of self-respect by sticking to what I say in your replies. Arguing against positions that don't exist may make you feel like you are getting somewhere, but really all you are doing is entertaining me. But if that's your goal, and I'm misunderstanding you, then ignore the previous paragraph, and keep it coming :)
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    So I have been advised by jj not to continue. Coincidentally, in what I think was an unrelated yet eerily similar experience, a squirrel hissed at me from its tree while I was running today. Once again, you attempt to rewrite the record, this time with a bland statement that you might now wish you had limited yourself to, but so long as you insist that you have not changed your mind on anything, then then I have the option to mention the various arguments you have offered for what was a much more emphatic position - to give just one example: "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all. Neither is ideal." That is not just "more complex", and it is not just an opinion, it contains an argument (an apparently faulty one, but an argument nevertheless.) So long as you continue to deceptively misrepresent your former opinions and statements, there is no point in me posting an alternative here for it to be similarly misrepresented, but I will repeat my offer to do so if a third party gets involved. As most of your last post was devoted, once again, to claiming (without any attempt at justification) that I don't have a leg to stand on, it seems negligent of you to omit making an attempt at a refutation of even one of the many points I have raised in the course of this thread - anyone would think that it is yourself who you are actually describing. I am sure it is just an oversight, so here's one example for you to tackle, left unanswered from the very post you were replying to: what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation?

mannykannot 12y ago

No problem - these replies practically write themselves. I usually have a good idea what I am going to write even before I read your next evasion, and you keep giving me new material to work with. A case in point: your attempt to claim that eslaught's explanation is irrelevant. Of course, it is not - characteristically, you have offered no counter to my explanation of how it gets directly to the point - and of course you were not thinking it was irrelevant when you tried to argue that it is marginally more complicated than your approach. Only after I pointed out that by doing so, you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position, did it occur to you that it was a mistake, and decided that you would have been better off claiming that the explanation is irrelevant, even though that claim won't stand up. So instead of expunging one of your inconsistencies, you have added another case where you contradict yourself in attempting to rewrite the record. You also claim that this isn't what you were thinking of. Well, if you didn't think through the full scope and implications of what you were writing, that would be yet another mistake on your part, wouldn't it? We are, however, now entitled to wonder why, precisely, you think you can retrospectively rule this explanation out. As I wrote before, until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite that you will not attempt to rewrite later, there's no reason for me to post an explanation here.

jjnoakes 12y ago
You seem to start your posts with a lot of rhetoric, and then you repeatedly fall flat on your face with substance. > you had tacitly admitted to a complete reversal of your position > until you can demonstrate the integrity of committing to something definite My position has never changed, nor has my opinion. I still believe C++ was a useful analogy to the problem at hand (people misunderstanding Java references and pass-by-reference), and I still believe that any explanation involving machine addresses and stack frames that you could write (which you continue to refuse to do) would be more complex than comparing to C++. If you care to take your umpteenth failed swing at that, go right ahead. I already know what's going to happen though. "Failed attempt at rhetoric, misrepresenting of opponent's position, arguing against the failed position". I should advise you, though, that if you are going to keep wasting your own time flailing around in this thread, you should try to have a modicum of self-respect by sticking to what I say in your replies. Arguing against positions that don't exist may make you feel like you are getting somewhere, but really all you are doing is entertaining me. But if that's your goal, and I'm misunderstanding you, then ignore the previous paragraph, and keep it coming :)
- mannykannot 11y ago
  So I have been advised by jj not to continue. Coincidentally, in what I think was an unrelated yet eerily similar experience, a squirrel hissed at me from its tree while I was running today. Once again, you attempt to rewrite the record, this time with a bland statement that you might now wish you had limited yourself to, but so long as you insist that you have not changed your mind on anything, then then I have the option to mention the various arguments you have offered for what was a much more emphatic position - to give just one example: "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all. Neither is ideal." That is not just "more complex", and it is not just an opinion, it contains an argument (an apparently faulty one, but an argument nevertheless.) So long as you continue to deceptively misrepresent your former opinions and statements, there is no point in me posting an alternative here for it to be similarly misrepresented, but I will repeat my offer to do so if a third party gets involved. As most of your last post was devoted, once again, to claiming (without any attempt at justification) that I don't have a leg to stand on, it seems negligent of you to omit making an attempt at a refutation of even one of the many points I have raised in the course of this thread - anyone would think that it is yourself who you are actually describing. I am sure it is just an oversight, so here's one example for you to tackle, left unanswered from the very post you were replying to: what do you think is wrong with eslaught's explanation?