A quick newbie question on TOP.

Daniel T. wrote:
> "Harry" <simonsharry{}> wrote:
> > Phlip wrote:
> >
> > > "Top" is a relentless hobby of one poster here, not a generally accepted
> > > industry term. And it's not any kind of "alternative to OO". It's just the
> > > common practice of iterating a heterogeneous list.
> >
> > 1. Just what does it take an industry, a community to get interested in
> > something like TOP? (As I read further the TOP site...) It appears
> > that this P/R proponent is asking for a mere 3 real-world objective
> > cases for an OO Challenge. And, apparently, no one has been able to
> > provide even one so far. Which tends to tell me that this may not
> > necessarily be all nonsense, something worth consideration, a point
> > already mentioned on the (heavily x-reffed) site somewhere.
>
> Back when topmind started posting on this group, I posted a few examples
> with nary a reply, a few ad hominems but that's about it.

I do not remember ignoring any relavent examples. I deny any conscience
evil doing on my part WRT your examples.

>
> When he started posting on talk.origins about how Intelligent Design is
> good science, I gave up on him.

This is ad hominem squared! For one it is off-topic to OO. Second, I
said it "could qualify as science" with some adjustments. I did NOT say
"it was", let alone "good". Further, your implication is that if
somebody is wrong about the evolution debate, then they will be wrong
about OO. If Booch or Alan Kay turned out to be an ID fan, does that
mean we should burn their book and languages? Your stance on this is
intellectually flawed in multiple ways and I am calling you on it.

-T-

"topmind" <topmind{}technologist.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > "Harry" <simonsharry{}> wrote:
> > > Phlip wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Top" is a relentless hobby of one poster here, not a generally
> > > > accepted
> > > > industry term. And it's not any kind of "alternative to OO". It's just
> > > > the
> > > > common practice of iterating a heterogeneous list.
> > >
> > > 1. Just what does it take an industry, a community to get interested in
> > > something like TOP? (As I read further the TOP site...) It appears
> > > that this P/R proponent is asking for a mere 3 real-world objective
> > > cases for an OO Challenge. And, apparently, no one has been able to
> > > provide even one so far. Which tends to tell me that this may not
> > > necessarily be all nonsense, something worth consideration, a point
> > > already mentioned on the (heavily x-reffed) site somewhere.
> >
> > Back when topmind started posting on this group, I posted a few examples
> > with nary a reply, a few ad hominems but that's about it.
>
> I do not remember ignoring any relavent examples. I deny any conscience
> evil doing on my part WRT your examples.

They are in google, if you care to reply...

> > When he started posting on talk.origins about how Intelligent Design is
> > good science, I gave up on him.
>
> This is ad hominem squared! For one it is off-topic to OO. Second, I
> said it "could qualify as science" with some adjustments. I did NOT say
> "it was", let alone "good". Further, your implication is that if
> somebody is wrong about the evolution debate, then they will be wrong
> about OO.

It was not my intention to imply that someone who approves of ID cannot
design software. I am simply stating a fact about my behavior (not
yours.) Take it as you will.

Daniel T. wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind{}technologist.com> wrote:
> > Daniel T. wrote:
> > > "Harry" <simonsharry{}> wrote:
> > > > Phlip wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Top" is a relentless hobby of one poster here, not a generally
> > > > > accepted
> > > > > industry term. And it's not any kind of "alternative to OO". It's just
> > > > > the
> > > > > common practice of iterating a heterogeneous list.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Just what does it take an industry, a community to get interested in
> > > > something like TOP? (As I read further the TOP site...) It appears
> > > > that this P/R proponent is asking for a mere 3 real-world objective
> > > > cases for an OO Challenge. And, apparently, no one has been able to
> > > > provide even one so far. Which tends to tell me that this may not
> > > > necessarily be all nonsense, something worth consideration, a point
> > > > already mentioned on the (heavily x-reffed) site somewhere.
> > >
> > > Back when topmind started posting on this group, I posted a few examples
> > > with nary a reply, a few ad hominems but that's about it.
> >
> > I do not remember ignoring any relavent examples. I deny any conscience
> > evil doing on my part WRT your examples.
>
> They are in google, if you care to reply...
>
> > > When he started posting on talk.origins about how Intelligent Design is
> > > good science, I gave up on him.
> >
> > This is ad hominem squared! For one it is off-topic to OO. Second, I
> > said it "could qualify as science" with some adjustments. I did NOT say
> > "it was", let alone "good". Further, your implication is that if
> > somebody is wrong about the evolution debate, then they will be wrong
> > about OO.
>
> It was not my intention to imply that someone who approves of ID cannot
> design software. I am simply stating a fact about my behavior (not
> yours.) Take it as you will.

It comes acrossed as an underhanded dig. It was not very diplomatic,
whether you intented it that way or not. For example, you could have
said something like, "I finally gave up on him because of his opinion
on the evolution/design debate", rather than force a misleading
summary. If you cannot get the summary right, then skip the doggon
thing.

If you don't practice your diplomacy and people skills, your work will
be offshored to Timbuktoo for 80-cents per hour.

And I don't know why you consider my view so extreme. It is a reworked
version of ID that is more comparable to SETI than to Behe's view. If
it was Behe's version, I could understand the complaint. I DON'T ACCEPT
BEHE'S VERSION AS "SCIENCE". You give SETI a free ride but turn into a
double-standard hard-ass on my ID version. It is simply SETI looking
down instead of up. It is not materially different than SETI. Any
differrence with SETI is splittin' hairs. It is like a language debate
over whether "&" or "." should be the concatenation character.

-T-