Posted by Breklin on 10/20/06 18:01

Dude, now you guys have reached the point of complete pointlessness.

Has your point moved in either direction? I can't see that it has.

Now you are simply polluting this newsgroup with your inane arguments.
Nothing personal to either of you but get over it. Exchange personal
emails or something and pursue your argument via that route. I, for one,
am SNT of watching you guys go back and forth on this.

Steve wrote:
> ".:[ ikciu ]:." <no@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehath8$fu4$1@news.dialog.net.pl...
> | Hmm Steve <no.one@example.com> wrote:
> | > however you, of all people, SHOULD be supplying code because no one
> | > here can understand your english. code is like a picture, almost
> | > speaking for itself. that's why i asked you to supply some, so i
> | > could fully understand how you planned to implement your
> | > solution...because with JUST a description - your description - your
> | > solution won't work (as you originally stated it and only *recently*
> | > modified to look like the two other examples given which DO work).
> |
> | omg man if you think i need your solution to make my own, you are wrong,
> | next time i will post almost full solution like you did
>
> again, i did not say that. what i have said is that you stated, restated,
> and restated one solution (that autoincrementing an int id field solves the
> problem). after explaining why it was not a complete answer and was prone to
> causing other problems (that were addressed in solutions i gave and that
> belkin gave), you then changed 'your' solution and it's explanation is such
> a suspect manner - almost mirroring our two solutions - that it is hard to
> assume anything else. i have only implied the assumption. if your proof to
> the contrary is to in fact post code that explains your english objectively
> next time, so be it. at least then, you'll not have such a convenient memory
> lapse as to what your solutions evolve into.
>
> but you know this...otherwise, why are you focusing on THIS rather than
> backing up your opinion that it is better to only describe solutions in
> english and, that providing coded examples is 'pfff...wrong'. that WAS the
> topic of your last post, no? i can only further assume you have no basis for
> that opinion other than it is your preference...that hardly indicates the
> 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in my doing so.
>
> does your programming suffer the same lack of logical reasoning?
>
>
>

[Back to original message]