Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

> "Kris" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:fqse2j$2s5n$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Janice Caron Wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/03/2008, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote:
> >> >  how many people do you think do use D overall?
> >>
> >> It's not in my nature to form opinions in the absence of data.
> >
> > That is the funniest, and perhaps most deliberately misleading post ever made to this NG
> 
> Now, now!


Seriously Jarrett ... I'll be happy to dig up prior posts to illustrate :)

I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of CamelCase in module names.

Classic stuff, and quite contrary to claims of "It's not in my nature to form opinions in the absence of data". If you deliberately manufacture or synthesize said data, or otherwise generate it via one's subjective whims alone, then obviously the claim would hold true in the above example or any other. Slick huh?

I'm not here to rock the boat, but really ...

"Kris" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:fqt2lb$1897
>> Now, now!
>
>
> Seriously Jarrett ... I'll be happy to dig up prior posts to illustrate :)
>

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree ;)  But it's just certain things shouldn't necessarily be said in mixed company is all.

On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>  I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of CamelCase in module names.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, but "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools" has never been said by anyone, so far as I am aware, and certainly not by me.

Last time I called strawman on that very point, Jeff Nowakowski had to dig up the exact quote to end the conversation. I was rather hoping that that would be the end of it for all time. Aparently not.

So for the record ... /again/ ... this is what I claimed, way back in September 2007: I claimed that my first impression upon reading the Tango documentation was that the decision to deliberately violate the D style guide had been a petty decision. In the same post I apologised in case that came across as contentious. I tend to assume that writers (even writers of documentation) appreciate feedback about what sort of first impressions their work conveys, so I assumed that the feedback would be welcome. In subsequent posts I went on to add that the core body of code in Tango is excellent.

(Feedback for any of my own documentation is /encouraged/, by the way. If it sucks, or gives any misleading impression, tell me).

So, Kris, you /know/ that I don't think that "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools", and that I have not ever made that claim, so please, please, please let us put this to rest once and for all. Every time you retell this, you exaggerate upon your previous retelling, and it was already inaccurate the last time.

This got old a long time ago. Can we drop it?

There needs to be a foil for your BS, Janice, since some newer people may accidentally actually buy into it. Thus, every time these BS filters have a meltdown, I will happily call you out:

You claim:
---
It's not in my nature to form opinions in the absence of data
---

You said:
------
Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish; if the latter, it was petty.
------

In case you don't recognise it, that is one pompous, arrogant and subjective
opinion, in the absence of any realistic data whatsoever. It took a litany
of further posts for you to even grasp that a 'style guide' is just that: a
Guide. Full post is right here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_D_Conference_Tango_Phobos_58225.html#N58577
You call for moderation on these forums, Janice. The bullshit needs to be
moderated too. After all, this is supposed to be a place for learning.




"Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
[snip]
> This got old a long time ago. Can we drop it?

It was old the first time around.

On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>  You said:
>  ------
>  Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style
>  guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and
>  only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just
>  purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish;
>  if the latter, it was petty.
>  ------

I did, albeit six months ago. More to the point, I did /not/ say, and have never said: "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools". That was a strawman.

Now /please/ drop this vendetta.

"Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote in
> On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>  You said:
>>  ------
>>  Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style
>>  guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and
>>  only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just
>>  purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish;
>>  if the latter, it was petty.
>>  ------
>
> I did, albeit six months ago. More to the point, I did /not/ say, and have never said: "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools". That was a strawman.


BS is BS. Period. Also, you cutely cut out the appropriate part, Janice. Here's my post:
---
I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of CamelCase in module names.
---

See the "or something, " in there? Obviously there was no word-for-word recall, yet the implied gist was conveyed.


> Now /please/ drop this vendetta.

There's no vendetta anywhere in the vicinity ... just a run-of-the mill BS call-out. You drop the BS and the attitude, and you won't get called out on it. Take or leave it as you choose

On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > I did, albeit six months ago. More to the point, I did /not/ say, and
>  > have never said: "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools".
>  > That was a strawman.
>
>  BS is BS. Period. Also, you cutely cut out the appropriate part, Janice.
>  Here's my post:
>  ---
>  I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs
>  or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of
>  CamelCase in module names.
>  ---
>
>  See the "or something, " in there? Obviously there was no word-for-word
>  recall, yet the implied gist was conveyed.
>
>  > Now /please/ drop this vendetta.
>
>  There's no vendetta anywhere in the vicinity ... just a run-of-the mill BS
>  call-out. You drop the BS and the attitude, and you won't get called out on
>  it. Take or leave it as you choose

You misunderstand the source of my objection.

I have /no/ problem with you calling out hypocrisy, if you feel it's your duty to do that. You may even be right - In one sense perhaps I did leap to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence, six months ago.

However, what I object to is being maliciously misquoted. I did /not/, repeat, /not/, say that Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, either with or without the "or something". That is simply untrue.

The difficulty is, every time you paraphrase me, you change the meaning in a way which fails to convey my original intent, and indeed which conveys a completely different message. That constitutes putting words into my mouth. I realise you feel that the words "or something" constitute a suitable disclaimer, but they don't. Really, they don't.

In summary then: /no/ problem with your calling out hypocrisy; /big/ problem with being misquoted. (There's also no need for it: I'm here - you can just /ask/ me my opinion). If you could cut back on the misquoting, we'll get along just fine.

Janice Caron wrote:
> The difficulty is, every time you paraphrase me, you change the
> meaning in a way which fails to convey my original intent, and indeed
> which conveys a completely different message.

It's a deficiency of the communication medium.

"Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
> On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>  There's no vendetta anywhere in the vicinity ... just a run-of-the mill
>> BS
>>  call-out. You drop the BS and the attitude, and you won't get called out
>> on
>>  it. Take or leave it as you choose
>
> You misunderstand the source of my objection.
>
> I have /no/ problem with you calling out hypocrisy, if you feel it's your duty to do that.


Ah, some more BS there -- while you call for moderated forums, and claim to have no problem with anyone calling out your hypocrisy, you're happy to drop snide remarks regarding "duty" :p


> You may even be right - In one sense perhaps I
> did leap to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence, six
> months ago.


Six-months has no relevance whatsoever. You answered Bill with a hypocrtical and typically pompous claim, and apparently want to drag this out as long as possible. Fair enough.

You claim:
---
It's not in my nature to form opinions in the absence of data
---

You had said:
------
Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish; if the latter, it was petty.
------

I noted:
------
I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of CamelCase in module names.
------


> However, what I object to is being maliciously misquoted. I did /not/, repeat, /not/, say that Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, either with or without the "or something". That is simply untrue.


Maliciously misquoted? Bullshit <g> -- it is questionable that you were even "quoted", and any 'malicious' aspect is manufactured entirely by yourself. Seems to me like you're splitting hairs in a vague attempt to deflect attention. In fact - if there's /anything/ dubious going on here, it would appear to lie within your attempts to paint this callout as "malicious" and as a "vendetta", when in fact it is merely a way to let new people know that your sacred "opinion" is not at all what you claim it to be.


> If you could cut back on the
> misquoting, we'll get along just fine.


Yes, it is perfectly clear that you /really/ want to make this someone else's problem. You got caught out by your own petty arrogance -- have sufficient grace to accept that without the ongoing pedantic nonsense, and we'll get along just fine

watching for quite a while.
you really kill me. are you resistant to to see that you did something wrong???
please go into yourself and think a little.

sorry not an english native.




Kris Wrote:

> "Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
> > On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> >>  There's no vendetta anywhere in the vicinity ... just a run-of-the mill
> >> BS
> >>  call-out. You drop the BS and the attitude, and you won't get called out
> >> on
> >>  it. Take or leave it as you choose
> >
> > You misunderstand the source of my objection.
> >
> > I have /no/ problem with you calling out hypocrisy, if you feel it's your duty to do that.
> 
> 
> Ah, some more BS there -- while you call for moderated forums, and claim to have no problem with anyone calling out your hypocrisy, you're happy to drop snide remarks regarding "duty" :p
> 
> 
> > You may even be right - In one sense perhaps I
> > did leap to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence, six
> > months ago.
> 
> 
> Six-months has no relevance whatsoever. You answered Bill with a hypocrtical and typically pompous claim, and apparently want to drag this out as long as possible. Fair enough.
> 
> You claim:
> ---
> It's not in my nature to form opinions in the absence of data
> ---
> 
> You had said:
> ------
> Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish; if the latter, it was petty.
> ------
> 
> I noted:
> ------
> I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of CamelCase in module names.
> ------
> 
> 
> > However, what I object to is being maliciously misquoted. I did /not/, repeat, /not/, say that Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools, or something, either with or without the "or something". That is simply untrue.
> 
> 
> Maliciously misquoted? Bullshit <g> -- it is questionable that you were even "quoted", and any 'malicious' aspect is manufactured entirely by yourself. Seems to me like you're splitting hairs in a vague attempt to deflect attention. In fact - if there's /anything/ dubious going on here, it would appear to lie within your attempts to paint this callout as "malicious" and as a "vendetta", when in fact it is merely a way to let new people know that your sacred "opinion" is not at all what you claim it to be.
> 
> 
> > If you could cut back on the
> > misquoting, we'll get along just fine.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is perfectly clear that you /really/ want to make this someone else's problem. You got caught out by your own petty arrogance -- have sufficient grace to accept that without the ongoing pedantic nonsense, and we'll get along just fine
> 
> 
>