Autocoding evolves from........

[Sam Holden]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:42:59 GMT, Timothy Rue <threeseas at earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 28-Jan-02 22:41:39 Sam Holden <sholden at pgrad.cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:42:49 GMT, Timothy Rue <threeseas at earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On 28-Jan-02 12:35:57 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at home.com> wrote:
>>>>"Timothy Rue" <threeseas at earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>%> shop <lumberstore >yardsale
>>>
>>>>OK, so you are aware of prior art and are willing to acknowledge that
>>>>you are building upon it.  Good
>>>
>>>
>>>I would like to know what is going thru your head that you'd write such a
>>>thing.
>>>
>>>Perhaps if you tell me what your interest is in the prior art issue and
>>>what it is you think is going thru my mind, then maybe I can correct your
>>>perspective of me.
>
>>I can't speak for the OP,....
>
>You shouldn't assume. Really.
>
>But from what you said, you think re-invention is the surest way to create
>something that is valid.

Previously you accused someone else of being dishonest by trimming
your post in their reply. Here you have trimmed all but one unrelated line from
my post and then presented the very opposite of my point as if
it was my point.

Re-invention is a pointless waste of time (except obviously if the original
invention has been lost, or is a trade secret of some sort). However, if one
does not examine the prior art there is no way one could know if they
are re-inventing something or not.

Hence examining the prior art is a good thing.

The humourous thing is that the OP gave a compliment, but due to your
consistantly demonstrated lack of comprehension ability you have decided to
take issue with it. I then tried to clear up the miscomprehension by
brielfy explaining the well known principal of examining prior art, of
course your lack of comprehension skills mean you somehow managed to read
the exact opposite of what I actually wrote.

-- 
Sam Holden