Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

erk wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > However ignorant (sure) or arrogant (you don't know me
> > then) you think I am, I don't waste my time writing
> > about how others are less intelligent, more arrogant, or
> > more ignorant than I [...]
>
> True enough;

False enough. Dawn wastes a great deal of time ranting and insulting implicitly and explicitly entire communities. One need only read virtually any of her postings to see this demonstrated. For example the one you are replying to:

dawn wrote:
> > ... the RM-advocates have trashed ... even though they
> > seemed to have ZERO emperical data to prove their point
> > ... some on this list who seem to think they are
> > all-knowing ... I want them to adapt to me because I
> > want progress ... They need to be more flexible ...
> > Lists can be defined in set theory too, by the
> > way. There is nothing evil about them ... so don't snow
> > me with that ... Whatever the hang-up is, get over
> > it. It is time to ditch The Information Principle."

Other choice insults hurled by Dawn include "rape[ists]", "terrorists", "blind", etc. So please Erk, do not support Dawn's lies.

> I think Keith dragged you back into this NG in a fashion
> needlessly rude.

I didn't drag her here! We all know she was lurking, losing the battle to hold back her rants and PICK-ax grinding.

> > P.S. I figured I respond so that you didn't look like a
> > coward attacking someone who wasn't around to defend
> > herself. smiles.
>
> Ouch. Nicely done.

Her sentiment is not genuine and is merely a thinly veiled insult meant to conceal the pathetic fact that she found an excuse to rant. I've learned my lesson. Using Dawn's name simply fed a cranky troll. But, it was inevitable she would break her word and return to cdt merely two months after loudly proclaiming her departure.

• Keith -- Fraud 6