On 7 Feb 2013, at 03:29, John Doty <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> All this demonstrates is that you don't understand how to use Mathematica. > All you know how to do is fight against it. You don't understand when to use rules versus when to use the various algebraic tools. Your code is pointless: no trajectories calculated, no bridges designed, and it doesn't enable anything that Mathematica can't already do.
You have failed to appreciate the motives have made RJF devote so much time and effort to this ungrateful task. It is, of course, pure altruism and deeply felt sympathy for the poor Mathematica user confused by the mysterious and buggy features of this so undeservedly successful program. For a quarter of a century RJF has been diligently searching for this user, pouncing on any unsuspecting innocent novice and introducing him to exactly the same examples of Mathematica's supposed confusion, complexity and unreliability, including, of course, the notorious "non-recommendation" of Mathematica in instances where it could "threaten" =85 "injury, or significant loss". Practically every thing RJF has written concerning Mathematica on this forum he has posted numerous times over many years - yet what an ungrateful and Sisyphus like work it has been. The "confused user" for whose sake RJF must have abandoned or delayed serious work of the kind that computer science professors are overloaded with, never seems to acknowledge being "confused", nor does he ever appear to be grateful for the attempted rescue from the clutches of the charlatans at Wolfram Research. RJF's "improvements" to Mathematica are being ignored by both Wolfram and ordinary users, out of pure spite or perhaps inability to appreciate genuinely advanced "computer science". Instead of appreciating the kind heart and intellectual brilliance RJF has been gracing our forum with for so many years you write about petty and mundane subjects like "calculating trajectories" and "building bridges", which, along with mathematics, physics etc, etc, are obviously beneath RJF's concerns. Which, of course, proves that you, like the rest of us, are a typical Mathematica user, too confused by Wolfram to know what's good for you and the world.