On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 09:45 , chris wrote:
> You are correct.
perchance, but I will accept that as
"oh, well that's worth ripping off and reusing"
as being more accurate...
> I will follow your advice.
may I recommend that you limit following my
advice to only the 'useful parts'.... some of
my 'dumb!!!! dumb!!!! DUMB!!!!' infect even the
illustrations i put up here...
> Maybe I am making things more difficult for myself.
Oh quite!
Either you need to
a) become omniscient now
b) continue to struggle with the process
of reasoning and understanding through experimentation
and learning from your mistakes.
The path that you are on now requires that you read about the subject,
and trying to decide if you agree with the author. Then
of course there is the small problem of 'demonstration' that
you 'understand' by trying to code a solution. That way of
course leads to finding where you
a) thought you understood the text
a1: - and the code does not work
hence the struggle to get it to work.
more reading, more coding, more debugging.
a2: - your design defect has not yet bit you
and will be the source of code that will not work
later on in the process....
b) actually 'got it'
a very long, laborious and tedious process.
Simply attaining Godhead is obviously the better course....
ciao
drieux
---
if you need a smiley on that,
then you may have other issues
which need to be addressed....
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
