Kris wrote:
> "Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
>> On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:

Hey you two!  Get off my thread!

Just kidding.  Looks like we were just about done discussing the D1 situation anyway, so go ahead and use the thread for whatever you feel like.  But staying here might make it harder for you to dig up incriminating quotes about each other later.

:-P

--bb

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote...
> Kris wrote:
>> "Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
>>> On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>
> Hey you two!  Get off my thread!
>
> Just kidding.  Looks like we were just about done discussing the D1 situation anyway, so go ahead and use the thread for whatever you feel like.  But staying here might make it harder for you to dig up incriminating quotes about each other later.
>
> :-P
>
> --bb


Yeah, my apologies for the OT. Seems like there's some kind of sock-puppetry starting too.

later o/

"lurker" <lurker@lurk.com> wrote in message news:fr1fek$29jf$1@digitalmars.com...
> 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.


Your English is perfectly fine ... don't worry about it.

It would be helpful if perhaps you would be more specific in what you are criticizing? Without that, your post can run the risk of being mistaken for that of a troll, and I'm sure that's not the case here. Also, it can be worth noting that anonymous posts are often disregarded, especially where the subject matter is perhaps a little delicate? That's because there's a couple of lurking jokers who find joy in the act of sock-puppetry, as they troll.

Cheers;

On 09/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 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.

I surrender, OK? Just write the confession and I'll sign it.

If there is /anything/ at all which I can say, which will make you happy enough not to attack me ever again, just tell me what it is, and I'll say it. Likewise, if there is anything specific you want me /not/ to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it. If you want me to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.

This is an unconditional surrender. I've had enough. You win.

Kris wrote:
> "lurker" <lurker@lurk.com> wrote in message news:fr1fek$29jf$1@digitalmars.com...
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Your English is perfectly fine ... don't worry about it.
> 
> It would be helpful if perhaps you would be more specific in what you are criticizing? Without that, your post can run the risk of being mistaken for that of a troll, and I'm sure that's not the case here. Also, it can be worth noting that anonymous posts are often disregarded, especially where the subject matter is perhaps a little delicate? That's because there's a couple of lurking jokers who find joy in the act of sock-puppetry, as they troll.
> 
> Cheers;
> 
> 

I see his point and agree.

As I understand it, Janice has no problem with being called on hypocrysy, as long as you do it without spreading misinformation.

Just because, as you so repeatedly insisted, her opinion may be BS, does not

 ...

Oh damn. I don't know if kris is male or female.

Okay, let's do this again.

Just because, as you so repeatedly insisted, his/her opinion may be BS, does not mean you can misquote her. This is, as far as I can see, what kris is taking issue with, and I have to agree with him/her.

Remember kids, two wrongs don't make a right!

 --downs

"Janice Caron" wrote
> On 09/03/2008, Kris wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I surrender, OK? Just write the confession and I'll sign it.
>
> If there is /anything/ at all which I can say, which will make you happy enough not to attack me ever again, just tell me what it is, and I'll say it. Likewise, if there is anything specific you want me /not/ to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it. If you want me to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.
>
> This is an unconditional surrender. I've had enough. You win.

Kids, if you don't stop arguing back there, I'm going to pull this NG over and kick your asses.

Stop with the drama, let's do something productive...

-Steve

Janice Caron Wrote:

> On 09/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I surrender, OK? Just write the confession and I'll sign it.
> 
> If there is /anything/ at all which I can say, which will make you happy enough not to attack me ever again, just tell me what it is, and I'll say it. Likewise, if there is anything specific you want me /not/ to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it. If you want me to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.
> 
> This is an unconditional surrender. I've had enough. You win.

1. andre
2. janice

all it takes to mess up a online community is a determined kretin.

"Walter Bright" wrote
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> but at the moment I'm
>> barred from D2 by the const features,
>
> What exactly is barring you?

I helped to do an exploratory 'port' of Tango to D2 (version 2.007 I believe).  The rationale is, D2 is getting all these new features, but everyone who uses Tango is not testing them.  I don't know the statistics, but I would assume that a fair number of people who have good skills that would be useful to help QA D2 are using Tango (including myself), and therefore not using D2.  My fear was that D2 would be blessed, and when the Tango developers went to port it, would find that some design decision made it impossible to do something.

So during the port, I found several critical issues that made it difficult to port.  I worked around some of them, and some have been fixed, but here are the outstanding issues that prevented a true finished port:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1644 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1645 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1680 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1654

The last is really one of these 'design' issues that prevents a true port. Although Tango could be redesigned to fit within the const design of D2, I'd rather have D2 be modified to allow the design of Tango (and phobos) to work.

Oh, and as always, it would be nice if tail-const class references were possible :)  Not sure if you're working on that or not.  But that's really not a blocker for porting Tango.

-Steve

i don't know who wrote this, but it was not me. i wrote yesterday and recieved an answer from kris:


"lurker" <lurker@lurk.com> wrote in message news:fr1fek$29jf$1@digitalmars.com...
> > 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.


Your English is perfectly fine ... don't worry about it.

It would be helpful if perhaps you would be more specific in what you are criticizing? Without that, your post can run the risk of being mistaken for that of a troll, and I'm sure that's not the case here. Also, it can be worth noting that anonymous posts are often disregarded, especially where the subject matter is perhaps a little delicate? That's because there's a couple of lurking jokers who find joy in the act of sock-puppetry, as they troll.

Cheers;





lurker Wrote:

> Janice Caron Wrote:
> 
> > On 09/03/2008, Kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I surrender, OK? Just write the confession and I'll sign it.
> > 
> > If there is /anything/ at all which I can say, which will make you happy enough not to attack me ever again, just tell me what it is, and I'll say it. Likewise, if there is anything specific you want me /not/ to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it. If you want me to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.
> > 
> > This is an unconditional surrender. I've had enough. You win.
> 
> 1. andre
> 2. janice
> 
> all it takes to mess up a online community is a determined kretin.

"Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
> if there is anything specific you want me /not/
> to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it.


I'd intended to forego further posts on this topic, but you are asking for a response. Pardon the delay, and I'll try to be appropriately objective:

It's a question of double-standards, Janice. Not specifically what you, I, or anyone else says per se. While you sometimes appear to be adept at dishing out innuendo and/or the occasional scathing remark, you invariably cry wolf when some of that comes back to you. For the sake of illustration, I will stick purely to the content related to this exchange. Please do not read any more into it than merely an illustration. In that vein, I'm going to use the same 'opinion' of yours as before and attempt to paint an alternate viewpoint for you. Here it is:

------
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.
------


You can argue the following observations all you like. However, you've effectively asked me what you might do, or not do, in order to avoid opening yourself up to criticism - here's how things look from one perspective:

1) Your message is making strong assertions about the intent and capabilities of the targeted individuals. Think, for a moment, about how you'd react if the tables were turned? Going by past behaviour, you'd call out "Ad Hominum!" or otherwise convey some righteous indignation. Yet you seem quite comfortable with the delivery yourself. Let us save the semantic-splitting for the lingusitic gymnasts ... in your post, you are directly discussing several people who can correctly identify intent. Double-standard #1

2) Those assertions are based entirely upon your personal opinion of what a 'style-guide' represents. See that gaping chasm between the reality of what you claim to be a problem, and how you shape it (replete with exclamation and accompanying rhetoric) ... it is tricky to define this gap in any kind of glowing terms.

This current exchange began via a simple BS callout. Along the way, you've characterized that act as "malicious", as a "vendetta", a "strawman", and an "attack". Just what do you call your above "amatuerish" message? It was apparently unprovoked, so therefore is an attack? Is it perhaps a strawman also? Does seems that way. Are you really so terribly precocious as to think any decision made therein, without your consent, warranted quite such disdain and drama from you? If not, then your post was also perhaps malicious? Maybe even with shades of a vendetta? The specific point here is not that you made these unwarranted and uninformed claims, but that you subsequently wave the terms "attack", "vendetta", "malicious" and so on like theAd Hominum club when you have opened yourself up to some criticism. Double-standard #2

3) There was an occasion related to the above post where, if I recall correctly, you took offence and demanded an apology. I don't remember seeing you offering an apology to the various people you likely offended (potentially in a malicious manner) via the intended implications of your message? Of course, nobody asked for a subsequent apology (and nobody is asking for one now), but hopefully you can see double-standard #3?

4) I recall that you once claimed to be a writer of fiction? Then you must clearly comprehend the distinction between "quoting" and abstract paraphrasing. That hasn't stopped you from using the spit-on-me-but-dont-you-dare-misquote-me responses echoed in this exchange. That is, you fully understand that is not applicable, but use it for effect anyway. Double-standard #4

5) I've witnessed you make two calls for forum moderation. Most recently, I believe the call was with regard to Ty Tower? You do realize, I hope, that moderation takes many forms, and that perhaps some of your posts warrant moderation also? Certainly, the death-threats and Nazi-style propoganda eminating from Mr Tower is of a rather different nature, yet moderation is still moderation. Pot calling the kettle black seems like double-standard #5

The take-away message is that, whether you like it or not, the level of hypocrisy can sometimes become overbearing from a different perspective. And that's related to just a single post, Janice. Even if you claim some of it to be a stretch, it does leave a lot of question-marks hanging. This is why I called you out on the somewhat grandiose and (IMO) badly misleading claim you made earlier.

Nobody else does this kind of thing on the NG ... you are really out there by yourself, and thus make yourself a target for subsequent criticism.



> If you want me
> to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.


Sadly, this is a martyr card. The one that usually screams "It's all your fault, and I'm entirely innocent!".  I have no personal desire for you to do anything, Janice, other than to perhaps drop the double-standards.

Perhaps some folk will view this post as a personal attack, or some such. It is not, or rather, it certainly not intended to be. Instead, it is merely complying with your request. Take it for what it is and no more.

Lastly - a general mea-culpa from me to everyone, since I've obviously played my part in reducing the signal-to-noise-ratio via this exchange. I offer you my apologies for doing so.