wrote in message ...
In uk.d-i-y, RichardS noaccess@invalid wrote:

This is simple.

It is. There's a universally-agreed on meaning of the word "efficiency"
in its technical sense. But our resident eccentric, IMM, will insist on
treating it as a synonym for "effectiveness", "utility", "fitness for
purpose", or a slew of other terms. He will (on all past form) refuse to
back down on terminology; if you're not careful he'll accuse you soon of
having been blinded to the iniquities of land taxation and word abuse by
your time at a snotty Uni.

I was waiting for some bizzare twist of logic and relevance to come from
IMM, but we were spared of that! Not sure that a Northern Redbrick (however
accomplished) quite qualifies for the usual vitriol from IMM. I'm sure I'll
be proven wrong on that score soon, tho.

Perhaps the motto I ought to remember is to never argue with a fool. They
bring you down to their level and then win on experience....


Please don't feed the trolls. Benign neglect is working reasonbly on the
oh-so-humourous cross-posting brigade.
(I don't see those posts, excepting when someone replies to them and drops
the xposts. Gonna drop a post in about NewsProxy at some point 'cos it's
doing sterling work for me in filtering out all of this crap)

Even the wish to not leave Google
/dejanews history uncorrected is served better in the long term by
removing the encouragement to polemic which answering IMM provides.

Just walk on by. This is not the thread you're looking for. Nothing to
see here, folks, Move along. Move along. They'll turn to rock when the
sun comes out. Move along.

ah, you beat me to it - this was pretty much my last post on the subject,
and even my usual morbid curiosity would have failed me had the thread
continued.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk