Randy wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >>Randy wrote: >> > Congrats, Steve. By quibbling over nits rather than explaining >> > concepts, that was your intent right? >> >>Don't blame Stephen for your errors. There are plenty explanations >>of concepts around, now unfortunately including yours. > > OK. Let's take a giant step backward to give some perspective. > > You can argue or you can explain.
What you did was explain falsely.
> The only goal of the former is to win. > Unfortunately, like the OP, I was looking for explanation and > understanding, not combat.
No, that's not what happened; Stephen didn't object to anyone seeking explanation. He objected to your post. In those cases where you made enough sense to be right or wrong, you were wrong.
> However on Usenet, the latter is pretty much > all there is. > > Apparently winning was Steve's goal, so I congratulated him. > Congratulations to you too, Bryan.
Have you considered the damage you could do? What if a serious but novice student confused your explanations with material worth reading? Consider the service Stephen was doing by helping the weed your claims out efficiently.