IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New What are you on about? No, absolutely not "Payroll example"!
See the bit about "Branched Reply To ..." up at the top left in my post? Sorry, that's easily overlooked sometimes; maybe I should have quoted a bit of your post that I was responding to.

Just for the record, at the time I posted that, you had got four direct replies (and one indirect one) before mine; of the four, one was a joke and three were simple explanations of why it was unworkable.

I was just thniking that if you could understand and accept that kind of explanation in this sector of life (politics), then maybe you could use that very fact as a starting point to reconsider your reaction to replies pointing out essentially the same thing in another (programming).

Kind of "meta", you see? Discussing about the discussion itself (and your possible approaches thereto). Because I see absolutely no use getting into any discussion that's already umpteen-gazillion layers deep *in* your usual "vague insults!" back-and-forth. (Which you are now, I note, in your usual unthinking fashion trying to expand onto this thread -- in stead of *first* checking what it is we're talking about here!)

The sooner you realise that *that* discussion (that KIND of discussion!) is already, to all practical intents and purposes, LOST for you -- because AFAICS *nobody wants to dance that dance with you any more* -- the better for all involved.

HTH!


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Okay, I see it now
I don't post on iwethey often enuf to be familiar with that convention. Anyhow, if you've encountered that idea before, then the usual course of action is to simply ignore it. I don't know what you did in highschool, nor do I want to. Whatever it was, it made you grumpy.
________________
oop.ismad.com
     Seriously, Bryce, I'm not saying this to be mean, but... - (CRConrad) - (34)
         You mean the "payroll" example? Not very specific - (tablizer) - (31)
             What are you on about? No, absolutely not "Payroll example"! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                 Okay, I see it now - (tablizer)
             Wow, deja vu (hypothetically) - (drewk) - (28)
                 Which one? - (tablizer) - (27)
                     Neither - (drewk) - (26)
                         Thank you, that was very helpful - (tablizer) - (25)
                             No, thank *you* - (drewk)
                             Burden Of Proof - (pwhysall) - (23)
                                 thats easy c++ :-) -NT - (boxley) - (19)
                                     idontnowatumeenbox.c++isorlrite - (pwhysall)
                                     C is a crippled language because it is a crippled language - (tablizer) - (17)
                                         I have always considered C to be . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (15)
                                             I disagree. - (admin) - (1)
                                                 ICLPRD (new thread) - (static)
                                             Nah, Pascal was a teaching language - (hnick) - (5)
                                                 According to Nicholas Wirth he did not . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                                                     So who are you going to believe? - (hnick) - (2)
                                                         Nah, you probably won't: "Argument". HTH! :-) -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                         Early versions had only 16-bit integers . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                     Maybe not originally, but when he wrote Modula II - (jb4)
                                             I gotta say that... - (jb4) - (6)
                                                 It's that stupid single exit point from a function - (crazy) - (5)
                                                     I've got NO PROBLEM with that - (jb4) - (4)
                                                         You ever have nested while and for loops? - (crazy) - (3)
                                                             "Numereous flags" - (jb4) - (1)
                                                                 Didn't think so? - (crazy)
                                                             That's a good way out. - (static)
                                         It is not the pinochle of procedural by a longshot, either. -NT - (jb4)
                                 All these years and you still misunderstand my opinion - (tablizer) - (2)
                                     Not misunderstand ... DISAGREE -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                                         If something is objectively better, then you should show why -NT - (tablizer)
         Perhaps, more examples of naivity? - (warmachine) - (1)
             Lots of 'em-they're the very ones I want him to (re)consider -NT - (CRConrad)

Remember, rank times IQ is a constant.
75 ms