🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:47:55 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
><cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>>As have I and many others.  Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>>something much less than a "debate."  
>
>Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
>as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
>opposing view.

It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense - like
you're doing now.  There's no logical conflict with continuing to
argue/explaing something for the duration of flawed attempts at
counter-arguments, and at the same criticizing the very same argument
style which, esp several post in, frequently floods a thread with crap
& defensiveness instead of insight, just like this (now) silly thread.

There's no reason why an internet "debate" can't or shouldn't have
mostly valid arguments with little repetition and of varying
persuasiveness.

>>Exchanging valid arguments is
>>one thing.  Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?

Nope.  You're again proving my point.  Unable to develop more
convincing arguments or tolerate criticism,  you're still just
generating text, getting defensive, and making no sense.

>I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
>arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
>situations?  

If you put something out there and it turns out to be wrong, then suck
it up and move on.  If its being challenged and you can make it more
convincing then do so.  Believing your right no matter what and
getting mad instead of more clear/convincing is just plain stupid,
delusional & a waste of bandwidth.  Just because you haven't
challenged me very successfully in the past doesn't mean I can never
acknowledge when I'm wrong or missing details.  It happens- you're
just not there.

>>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to 
>>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack 
>>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of 
>>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>>
>>I think you're giving more credit than is due.  AFAIK He has never
>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>"certain situations".
>
>You really should pay more attention to my posts then,  I
>certainly did mention routablity previously.

Mention?  Indeed little more.

and?  So?  Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP takes advantage of the
routability of these communication devices and is routable.  You've
been talking down any impact from protocol combinations and talking up
the benefits of NETBUI.  That you "mentioned" routability doesn't
really impeach that observation - or at least it doesn't do it very
well.

>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value', 
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny 
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>the market, esp the small network consumer market?  Certainly the
>>answer is in the question.  Yes support, including the already mind
>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>Which is easier for (those users),  multiple protocols where
>they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>default?

The interface for configuring networking has been pretty standard or
at least closely related to/since the Win 95,NT days.  Nothing's been
dummed down, really.  It's only that some backwards-compatibility for
an EOL protocol is limited/problematic.  It's not like 2000 came by
default with NETBIOS and no TCP-IP by default.