🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19950915.11721E8.FB92@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
Schmelling) wrote:

> Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <19950909.11F9BC0.149FC@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
> : Schmelling) wrote:

> : > NO, NO, NO, NO!!  I said if you do not like the information I give you
> : > then look it up in a computer science book,

> You may not find it in any computer science resource.

Well, I guess this is as close as we'll get you to admitting that you lied.

>Every single one I have
> talked to has said the same thing.

How many is that?  Are they at different universities?  Do they have
different backgrounds?  What are their qualifications?  Why don't you name
a couple of them, or better yet, have them post their opinion on this
forum.  I can't wait to read your excuse on why they won't do it.  You
have yet to cite any source that we can check.

> There are some computer science
> profs who will cliam that CMT is indeed multitasking, but they are in
> the minority reguardless of your claims.

Please show us how you actually determined this.  You've made up other
so-called facts before; why should any of us believe that you aren't doing
so now?

> The reason that you will be
> hard pressed to find a unfavorable remark about CMT in a text book is that
> so many computers still use it.

Actually, I can find lots of unfavorable remarks about CMT in textbooks; I
just can't find any (textbook or magazine or journal articles) that deny
it is a form of multitasking.

>All this approach shows
> is that you use faulty logic.

My logic:  I can cite sources to back up my writing.  You can't.

Don's logic:  State something.  Since you are Don the Stud, it must be
true.  After all, since you don't cite any actual sources, you don't
believe that we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are just
making this stuff up.

> I have yet to see you site any published respected sources to back up your
> misleading opinion either.

Principles of Concurrent Programming, Dr. Greg Andrews, ISBN 0-8053-0086-4

Nevin 1, Don 0.

> : 1> I would expect someone with an email address that ends in .edu to
> : 1> be more sensible than this.

> : 2> If you do not like my proof then go get a BSCS degree and talk to
me then.
> Again, this says nothing about education reread the posts.

> : It sure looks like you are implying that I don't already have a BSCS.  If
> : you weren't, to use your words (see the unnumbered quote above, complete
> : with your typing errors, to show that I am not twisting your words; simply
> : using them), saying anything about (or, to use my words, putting down) my
> : education, what the hell were you talking about?
> It may look this way in your twisted mind but that means little to me.

I ask you AGAIN:  if you weren't commenting on my education by referring
to my .edu address and implying that I don't have a BSCS, then WHAT THE
HELL WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT???  Quit trying to weasel out of answering the
question.

> : Twisting your words around?  By doing what, besides *repeating* them??  I
> : can't help it if you keep posting things that are contradictory to each
> : other.

> Twisting my words around is exactly what you are doing.

Show us one, just one instance, where I either altered your words to
change the meaning or where I quoted you out of context and changed the
meaning.  Put up or shut up.

> You have never been consistant or upfront.

Again, show a specific instance.

> You also seem to think that using words like bullshit or BS will
> make your words more eloquant.

Not particularly.  They just tend to be a bit more precise than saying
something like "perhaps you are mistaken", since you are deliberately
trying to pass your opinion off as fact.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799