Peter said:
It is unfortunate that Jon allowed himself to be dragged down the same
rat-hole that I myself permitted myself to be dragged down. He has my
sympathy.
As I already mentioned, I see little point in any further effort on my
part in this thread. However, you've crossed a line by leveling false
accusations at me, and those I must correct:
And he's back! I knew you couldn't stay away! I missed you! (Laugh, damn
it.)
And why do you think I'm been holding my ground in this thread? Do you
think I enjoy being contradicted by you over-and-over again, especially
when my sense tells me you understand what I am saying perfectly well?
False accusations are indeed not fun.
Jon's interpretation is exactly correct.
Frankly, I am at a loss to understand how you can justify the opposite
interpretation.
Did it ever occur to you that you may not have chosen the best words to
precisely describe what you were trying to say? "Interpretation" in this
case is a perfect word. Jon perhaps interpreted what you said one way, I
perhaps interpreted it another; if you are at a loss to understand how
that can happen, well, it's the nature of language. English is not like
C#. My having said "I don't" does not in any way imply or otherwise
justify someone reading into that that I take the opposite stance to
what I was commenting to; it leaves things wide open for interpretation.
As does Jon's "I really don't *think* so" statement. There's no 1s and
0s in English, unfortunately.
For example, if you had said "It is true that the MAC address is unique
among default, manufacturer-assigned (aka built-in) MAC addresses." Then
I, for one, would have understood perfectly what you said. But you
didn't say that, and you said the opposite for a reason, at least my
interpretation leads me to believe you intentionally obfuscated what you
said. Did you intend to? I can say that having experienced your defense
mechanism so much these past few days that my interpretation is that you
did. If you can't see how someone can come to that conclusion, then I'm
sorry, I don't know how else to explain it.
I believe I have made exactly clear the exceptions I
feel exist, but at worst I have left some sort of ambiguity.
You believe the facts you have stated to be true, as do I. But the
nature of language unfortunately always leaves room for ambiguity.
I
definitely have not written anything that should lead you to an absolute
conclusion opposite of my intent.
I can't know your intent except by what you have written. Clearly, I
disagree with some of the stuff you've written. Where I agree I've
stated that explicitly. How you can twist my intent I do not understand
either.
It is telling that when presented with such an ambiguity (such as it may
be), you choose to infer a meaning that you feel is incorrect, rather
than offering the benefit of the doubt.
That's exactly what you have been doing with me, well put. Until you got
to the point of "oh he's in his own world, I'm 'done'."
This tendency to attribute the
worst to someone else is made even more clear here (from a previous post):
Now you are generalizing, and have no facts for such a generalization.
I've posted in this forum many hundreds of times. I challenge you to
post sufficient examples to generalize that I condescend.
The only person in this thread who has made any sort of personal attack
or engaged in name-calling is you. For you to claim that I have
"certainly used worse" on you is wrong, factually and ethically.
First of all, "the mighty" is hardly something to be concerned about. If
that bothers you, you need to grow a thicker skin. Factually and
ethically, that's rich. But if you want to deny what you've written,
feel free. Name-calling is not always explicit, being condescending to a
person is, I would say, a far worse form of name-calling. *Especially*
compared to the term "the mighty."
Is this thread now going to be the condemning and the defense of the
term "the mighty?" It is used quite positively in these circumstances:
- The Mighty Organ -
http://www.themightyorgan.com/
- The Mighty Sparrow -
http://www.mightysparrow.com/
- The Mighty Geek -
http://www.themightygeek.com/
Why did you jump to the conclusion that I was using it for name-calling
in a negative sense? (Other than I admitted to it after the fact.) Feel
free to call me The Mighty Glenn. I like the sound of that.
I grant that your name-calling has been mild as Usenet goes, but you
certainly have not shied from it and in fact you appear to relish in
creating a personal confrontation as part of the discussion rather than
just sticking to the facts.
Now that's calling the kettle black. Your attitude in many of your posts
leads one to believe you relish in such behavior.
But you are alone in this thread with
respect to that sort of behavior, and I don't appreciate you falsely
claiming that you are not, especially when I am the target of that false
accusation.
If "the mighty" is name-calling, then your writings invite you to be
tarred-and-feathered from the forum. You see, from where I sit and read,
you have this attitude of superiority to practically everyone in this
forum, whether you intend your writing to come across like that or not.
Could I be misreading that? Admittedly, certainly yes, but I'm not the
only one. Do I think you do not contribute useful posts? Nope. Do I
think you are a bad person? Probably not.
But please, try some humor. It makes the day much more pleasant, and
this is C# nonsense after all, and way to unimportant to get yourself
all worked up over.
Yes, I am having fun. At this point in my career I'm in this industry
far more for the interaction with other people in it and how the
interpret, react, implement, and otherwise play with the bits-n-bytes of
the technology. This discourse, at least for me, has been tremendously
insightful. Not only on the nature of yourself, Jon, and some others,
but on the nature of myself and how the technology points that have been
raised have been discussed. Have fun coding, and always be open to
discussing, even if you don't believe you see the other person's point
of view. It's the best part of the game!
. But I suppose they are