Paul D. Buck wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Martin wrote: [...] >> So, that is a nice improvement on the previous ad-hoc arrangements. A >> good (if imperfect) "quick fix". >> >> I also consider them to be a complete 'fiction' in that there is a >> variable association with "cobblestones"! >> >> (Continued in further comment on another branch of this thread.) > > Which is also part of my objection to the use of Eric's script. It > breaks the connection between the definition of a Cobblestone and the > way it is measured. Equally bad it is not in more universal use meaning > that most projects do not think that this solves the issues we have.
Agreed. [...] > ... we need to be serious about a > comprehensive solution that most projects will support or all we will be > doing is throwing fuel on the fire. Possibly. There are still very big threads devoted to the issue. By how many participants? For this thread, there is predominantly just three or four participants participating. (All very good philosophically and good for honing debating skills and perhaps good for working through a few philosophical ideas.) > ... so, are > we really making progress ... or just engaged in talk that will peter > out and we will have the glory of doing nothing ... That's where we'll have to see what interests come blazing forth to claim glory for The Credits! ;-) [ Non-science discussion alert ] >>> And please don't assert that you know how I am feeling and what I am >>> thinking ... if you want to know me let me know and we can coordinate a >>> skype call and you can get to know me ... >> >> I didn't know that I did. I only described what I thought your writing >> style indicated. We all have our own ideas. Further comment if you feel >> the need direct offlist please. >> >> (Being completely non-serious) I would imagine something between Marvin >> (the paranoid android) and the Total Perspective Vortex? And sorry, I'm >> no Gag Halfrunt... (Douglas Adams, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.) > > And this is really interesting. You impugn my motivation, ascribe to me > statements I did not make, and then grandly give to me the opportunity > to rebut those issues in secret. I can see how you might desire such a > methodology. Sorry, but note the very plain humour alert and the attempt to avoid polluting this discussion with 'personal' bits. No conspiracy there. Please start a new thread if you want to 'go public' with whatever. As for a skype discussion, how can I be sure not to inadvertently say the wrong thing (or not say the 'right' thing) to muddle your thoughts? For what I _guess_ from your style of writing, I'm sure I'm well out of my depth there. We do seem to use language differently with different emphasis on what meaning might be intended. [ /Non-science discussion alert ] Regards, Martin -- -------------------- Martin Lomas m_boincdev ml1 co uk.ddSPAM.dd -------------------- _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
