in reply to Re^8: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

Let's do the link less coyly, Re^3: Is Using Threads Slower Than Not Using Threads? (Deliberate errors). Your "Deliberate errors" accusation is factual incorrect.

But I won't migrate that argument to a different thread nor will I respond to such a childish remark in that thread. (Your conclusions regarding that node are entertaining as an example of stretching conjecture to extremes.)

I'm not sure where you dreamed up a "moral crusade", but I am not having one. I tried to have a technical conversation, you chose to do something else, I've tried a few times to explain. I don't even see much having to do with morals there.

From elsewhere in this thread:

Please--suspend your disbelief for just 2 minutes--go back read the whole post again in the light that I was not attempting to insult you.

Ah, that'd be a nice exercise. You should try it.

Based on the ramping up of the paranoid remarks, I doubt you can pull it off at this point, though. Frankly, that makes me sad. It seems you may think that I (and others) are "out to get you" (even on a crusade against you). I am not. I say that sincerely, though I doubt you will be capable of believing it any time soon.

- tye        

  • Comment on Re^9: What is "aggressive" argument? (errors)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: What is "aggressive" argument? (errors)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 07, 2010 at 08:43 UTC

    I know you can read:

    BUGS AND LIMITATIONS When share is used on arrays, hashes, array refs or hash refs, any data they contain will be lost.

    Like I said, "Deliberate errors". And that is just typical of your tactics.

    And don't put words in my mouth. No conspiracy, just bedazzled courtiers.

    I no. I won't be responding further.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

      Obviously, I didn't read that section of the documentation. (If you want to argue that point further, then respond in the appropriate thread less childishly.)

      I never said "conspiracy" and I never said that the people you see as out to get you were conspiring. Seeing a disorganized mob as bent on a crusade against you is still paranoid (as are other theories you coyly propose of late).

      I won't be responding further.

      Yes, responding to an honest attempt at communication without contorting it into an attack might require an open mind. And it saddens me that such is beyond you at this point.

      - tye        

[reply]
        (If you want to argue that point further, then respond in the appropriate thread less childishly.)

        You brought it here. And you still cannot stick to the technical issues you purport to want to discuss.

        You once again just reaffirm everything I've been saying. So there's just no point.

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations