RE: And so it continues...

I know this was said somewhat in jest, but it is not your good name that Joe
is blanketing with red herrings to make you look bad. I am slowly learning
how to debate with Joe (i.e. knowing when to quit). Everytime I debate with
him (over the past year) I get personal/offline correspondece from respected
individuals on this list who basically say the following:

"...stick with it Bartell, I agree with most of what you say and a heck a
lot more than what Joe is spreading. I would enter into the debate with
Joe, but he doesn't play fair or debate productively.".

These forums are used as a source for many IT departments direction (not
wholly I hope). If something is said that should be clarified so the
community has the whole picture, that is where I feel the need to
contribute.

I know Joe and I have dipped into unproductively debating at times (darn
emotion :-) and for that I apologize. I am working on having "The Patience
of Buck" <grin> who also had many of his statements taken out of context by
Joe in this thread, but yet does an excellent job (I think) of keeping
emotion out of it.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Josh Diggs
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:55 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: And so it continues...

How apropos that this thread is titled "And so it continues..."

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Aaron Bartell
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:51 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: And so it continues...


I didn't change the term's definition. I said you can't have mash-ups
without integration of technologies.

BTW, I read wikipedia's definition of mashup's BEFORE I responded to you (to
make sure my trade rag ready was reality). I think my definition coicides
nicely with wikipedia - they talk about integration/implementation of
technologies throughout the page. Did YOU read it?

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:28 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: And so it continues...

From: Aaron Bartell

Potatoe, potato. You can't have a mash-up without integration of
technologies. Or at least if you look at mash-ups recent popularity, it
has just as much to do about integrating technologies as it does with
data - the data had to get there somehow.

But, Aaron, you can't just change the meaning of an accepted term!

Mash-up has a specific meaning, obscuring that meaning by confusing it with
a different but related term causes misunderstandings.

Mash-up does not mean integration of technologies. It means using data from
multiple sources, regardless of their technology. In fact, the original use
of mashup was in mixing music, where they combined multiple songs (you can
read about it on Wikipedia). Nothing to do with technology.

Anyway, my point is this: when I use the term "mash-up" I am using the
accepted definition of combining data from multiple applications, typically
through the use of an Ajax-like technology in a browser. By that definition
EGL is not a mash-up.

If you want to change the meaning of the term mash-up, and then argue that
EGL (or even a browser) is indeed a mash-up by your personal definition,
then that's cool. I can't dispute the point since we are no longer are
using the same terminology, and by your definitions you are absolutely
correct.

Don't wanna argue opinions this year. Just want to make things clear.

Joe