Curious said:
Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post.
I don't know how it gets any simpler than it wasn't his point means it
wasn't his point.
I wish you would take your own advice. Hint: that means reading to
what I said before attempting to rebut it.
I did. Why I am not sure because it's you seem to invent arguments where
there are none and insist that your microscopically dissected and
syntactically tortured 'analysis' of what someone says is what they said no
matter how much the author clarifies his own opinion.
Clinton pondered what the meaning of 'is' is but you would argue the
galactic significance to the shape of the dot.
& he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed.
Which makes it clear that "routability" is irrelevant to the 'features' he
espoused for Netbeui.
Both
sides in a debate get to have "arguments."
No kidding? Who'd a thunk it?
Both of you contributed
points to a routability-based argument.
And the "routability-based argument" was mine. His 'argument' was that
routability did not apply to *his* case. Wise argument too as Netbeui is
unroutable.
You're overly-possessive of a
regurgitation of a factoid. That doesn't give you the corner market
on "argument."
No, it's simply that you've decided 'routability' is a key component of
Kony's argument and will apparently hold to that position even if God
himself came down and told you otherwise.
I brought up routing and Kony's 'argument' was it didn't apply to the case
he was making and, so, irrelevant.
You will now, no doubt, argue about the 'relevancy' of irrelevancy.
Yes indeed. Both are. So?
His case for the benefits of Netbeui had nothing to do with being routable
because Netbeui isn't.
Wrong. You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's
said." Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
No but I'm about to because arguing with you about nothing is fruitless.
You should "deal with simply what's said." Do you see me claim that?
You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use." What
HE DESCRIBED. Your discussion with him is connected even if you think
you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability"
factoid.
Believe whatever you want. You're going to anyway, regardless.
So? That argument is a REBUTTAL. You are not writing in a vacuum
i.e. both are contributing points on the topic.
A waste of time stating the obvious.
You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid.
Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points. Remember me? The
guy your responding to?
Remember the topic? What Kony's case was?
This whole thing began with me trying to clarify what Kony's position was
after you made a sort of 'accusation'. So, yes, in that context you're "no
one" as you're not Kony.
Not completely.
NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier
protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS
API.
Netbios is an API and Netbeui is a network protocol
Nope. It indeed adds/augments functionality.
Non sequitur. The 'functionality' Netbeui adds is the same 'model' it
always was and has not 'moved', away or otherwise.
Not my job.
So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone
else- how nice for you.
Yes, thank you.
By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning &
not realizing what you're "responding" to. "Details" & "context" are
not "philosophy." You should know the difference. That kind of quip
is a cute distraction, though.
It's potentially important when one does so for illumination but you don't.
You do it simply for the sake of arguing. It becomes a debate of the
obscure and irrelevant.
That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him.
Not mine with you. You should try actually addressing the person to
whom you're allegedly responding.
I think you're so lost in 'debating' that you haven't any idea what the
topic was.
All I did was tell you that your assertion "He thinks a single transfer
between two computers somehow translates to "network" behavior generally
and regardless of scale & management, etc." miss stated the case he made.
Because I'm trying to get you back on track. You've drifted off
somewhere with a dismissive attitude;
I'm seem dismissive because you want to debate with me about what the
meaning of my debate was. I was there. I was in it. And I was simply
telling you what transpired so you'd better understand but now you want to
'debate' whether what happened is what happened.
I must not understand the thread
because you feel you finished debating with Kony.
I did. Or he did. One or the other.
You're right, I am
trying too hard. It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're
not interested.
If you're trying to 'explain' to me that I don't know what happened in my
debate then no, I'm not interested because I already know.
See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to
phraseology.
No, it's where you'd be better off if you'd accept that I know what the
hell the debate I was in was about.
No. I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand.
You're caught back there. I've taken it the next step.
Could you please be a little more vague? Because I almost got a meaning in
that. Next step? Two step? Polka? Waltz?
Yeah. It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a
gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the
doubt & a soapbox. Clearly my patience is a liability.
Clearly.
No sense in arguing about it.
Again another sage piece of advice you should follow.
It's not 'advice' it's a statement about your 'surprise' that I can
understand Kony yet disagree.
However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how
much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of
technical details.
No, it doesn't. You expressed 'strangeness' at my apparent 'understanding'
of Kony yet going "back & forth with him."
I can understand him but not agree with it. In fact, it's dern difficult to
debate, productively anyway, if you don't 'understand' the other.
And if anyone need proof of it they can read this thread.
True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his
argument.
No, it doesn't. It has to do with *your* argument.
That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony
doesn't really apply here.
What that has to do with the price of eggs is anyone's guess.
Nice try. But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the
trees. It's too silly to mock me effectively.
It may seem pedantic but it's true.
If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also
has TCP/IP
Would seem to be the common case.
and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and
the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP-
then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a
small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps
requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be
noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED? It's an
academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of
NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language. Its a crock. A crock
to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic.
Then we agree on this point and if you had said it with enough detail, like
just then, so that I had a clue what you meant then we could have avoided
this little go round.
You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
And 'which' discussion is that?
And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation
by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it.
Yes, which makes routability irrelevant to his argument. Not to mine but to
his.
You were indeed
engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it
passed you by
How does one get it through your head that when someone says "not in my
case" that it means "not in my case?"
- I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could
repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important."
And you're busy creaming yourself that Kony is talking about the virtues of
routing netbios over TCP/IP when he's said his case isn't routed and the
topic is the Netbeui protocol.
Nope. NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3
carrier protocol.
No, Netbeui is a network protocol and Netbios is an API.
It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the
NetBIOS API.
It was created to support Netbios but Netbeui is a network protocol and
Netbios can be packaged otherwise, as in Netbios over TCP/IP.
Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in
certain contexts.
Yes, people have historically misused the terms but it's important to know
which is which when the topic is network protocols and not APIs.
Nevertheless they rely on each other. NetBIOS is
not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at
all). Yes it indeed adds functionality.
"Adds functionality" is a non sequitur. You claimed "Netbeui" had "long ago
moved away from this "limited use" model anyway" and Netbeui has done no
such thing. It's just as limited as it always was, which is why support for
it was dropped.
Netbios is still there, riding on TCP/IP.
Nope You missed it.
NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related.
Were. Pretty hard to make that case when one is still there and the other
isn't.
NetBIOS is effectively an
interface, an API, not even really a protocol.
There's no 'not even really' to it. It's not a network protocol and never
has been. It's an API.
So you can't complain/
infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the
argument because it doesn't belong there.
I not only "can't," I never have. Netbios is an API. Netbeui is a network
protocol and the debate with Kony was about MS dropping support for Netbeui.
Nope. It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of
benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability
Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
relevant to his argument.
b) he
responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying
it doesn't mater when you don't need it.
Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
relevant to his argument.
*You* want it to be relevant because it's *your* argument.
c) You both then "took
sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of
transfer speed.
Put simply, no.
Once the 'not needed' case was made my case was that his supposed Netbeui
benefit was of limited scope and value.
I think you're word parsing needs a little work.
I'm more interested in the meaning.
Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a
thread.
Maybe you should stop trying to discover the 'hidden meaning' of the obvious.
Wheh! I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands)
Horray.
I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are
debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of
worthwhile technical discussion. I've continued with explanation to
break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't
respond to my observations.
The reason for that is that you insist on telling me that when someone says
"it doesn't matter to my case" that they not only mean it matters but their
entire case depends on using it.
You want to regurgitate & move on & I
want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate.
Well, if you want to "fill in missing gaps of the debate" then we need to
start a different discussion because this one was about me trying to
clarify to you what Kony's argument was, not make new ones for him.
Unfortunately
responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless. In
that context further explanation is equally pointless. If I haven't
broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now.
You haven't 'broken through' because it would seem that, in the midst of
all this, you somewhere decided to sail off in another direction.
This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic
"hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway. Yes
killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer. We've wasting a lot of time
agreeing.
Agreed
