This used to be a polite newsgroup, a haven
of interest and creativty. For me, that ended
when I was called "very naive", just for posting
a rather bland opinion about goto being an
element of modern languages.

If I had known that I were stepping on a landmine
by forwarding an opinion, I certainly would have
refrained from the post. I have been thoroughly
flamed at this point, and I'm sure many more
flames will follow this post. I now have a much
better understanding of this newsgroup.

There was a busniessman that I knew at one time
who was the perfection of courtesy. I remarked to
him about that, after knowing him for some time,
and he responded that, no, he wasn't really like
that, but that he had been fooling me about being
nice.

Obviously I was fooled about this newsgroup.
Perhaps those who have, and probably will now
flame me are proud and happy about doing so.

Flame away. This isn't the newsgroup that I
thought it was.

Flame away.

Frank D. Wills wrote:
> Obviously I was fooled about this newsgroup.
> Perhaps those who have, and probably will now
> flame me are proud and happy about doing so.

I'm sorry for an offense. You just happened to touch way too many religious subjects one after another - goto, alcohol, drugs, women...

After entering this group last autumn i considered it quite wierd. But with time, i came to like everyone here. I believe there must also be a number of people who dislike me here - maybe i belong banned. You're not the first person i've offended, although i actually like all of them. And i have excused myself each time.

Now, who do you think fooled you about this newsgroup? As you posted you'd like to write a debugger, the reaction was very positive. Even i have dug up something - though admittedly somewhat irrelevant.

Whole world is a particularly bad place for people who are easy to offend. :) I know that by myself. But i can't imagine feeling offended after someone i don't personally know says something wrong.

Well, that doesn't excuse me. I'm sorry.

-i.
(eye/midiclub)

PS. Let's vote whether i should be banned or not. :)

PPS. Gone play with my toys. :>

PPPS. ...

Frank D. Wills wrote:
> This used to be a polite newsgroup, a haven
> of interest and creativty. For me, that ended
> when I was called "very naive", just for posting
> a rather bland opinion about goto being an
> element of modern languages.

This newsgroup still is.  Some of the people I admit are fairly frank about their opinions, sometimes bordering on rude; but then you realize that those same aggressive natures are what move things forward.  You take it with a grain of salt.  They'll get beaten up in the real world if their arrogance/aggression gets out of hand.  It's not our concern.

If Matthew Wilson called you naive, well that was his opinion. Don't worry about it.  Just because he says so, doesn't mean it's true. You shouldn't care about his opinion. He doesn't know what you can or can't do.  You even called him naive back.  That doesn't mean that's true, although maybe it is ;).  Good grief, we are all "naive" in one way or another.

> 
> If I had known that I were stepping on a landmine
> by forwarding an opinion, I certainly would have
> refrained from the post. I have been thoroughly
> flamed at this point, and I'm sure many more
> flames will follow this post. I now have a much
> better understanding of this newsgroup.

You got "flamed" because you were considered to be overeacting by some of the people here.  I've overreacted before too when someone made what I considered a belittling comment to me here.  It just makes it worse when you take it too seriously, though.  Best to let it slide, and feel sorry for the poor soul that thought you naive. :)

> There was a busniessman that I knew at one time
> who was the perfection of courtesy. I remarked to
> him about that, after knowing him for some time,
> and he responded that, no, he wasn't really like
> that, but that he had been fooling me about being
> nice.

Believe me...That's all that courtesy often is.  If you ever thought otherwise, you were fooled. It definitely has it place, but sometimes its best for people to just be themselves instead of pretenders.  Some may not like the results, but I'd rather know a person is being forthwright than surreptitious.  This newsgroup for the most part has had a fairly good balance between courtesy and frankness.  Courtesy never did hold it back, though.

You'll also notice that this newsgroup has fair number of nationalities involved, and thus the definition of courtesy is not the same amongst the members. But in the end this group does marvelously well considering the cultural variety here.

> Obviously I was fooled about this newsgroup.
> Perhaps those who have, and probably will now
> flame me are proud and happy about doing so.
> 
> Flame away. This isn't the newsgroup that I
> thought it was.
> 
> Flame away.
> 

You shouldn't be fooled about this newsgroup!  It has people in it! People are fallible, emotional, arrogant, willful, conniving, selfish creatures (ouch!).  Despite having people in it, this newsgroup has done very well!

If you think D has a future, please don't give up on this newsgroup just because of people! Forgive and forget.  And, no, people don't always apologize for what they say, nor do they necessarily need to.  That's just courtesy which doesn't necessarily mean they mean it if they do.

Just another human being,

John

This is the most immensely dull waste of time imaginable. It seems that we were all having lots of good fun, until Frank took something I said to mean something it did not.

If you look back, you can see that I did not say Frank was naive. I said, "Don't mean to offend, but this sounds terribly naive."

What John says about nationalities is salient here. To say something is "terribly XYZ" is an idiom of British English speech, it does not mean that something is terrible, or even extreme, it's a kind of pass-off comment. (Not that you should take this explanation as an attempt to resile from the statement itself; it is not.) Perhaps I should have thought to phrase it in a culture-neutral (at least as far as native English speakers go) fashion, as in "this sounds a bit naive". (You'll note, if you care to, that I did prefix with an attempt to not offend. Still, why let a full quote get in the way of a good story, eh?)

I'm from England, where the art of sarcasm has its home; in fact the north of England (and I have the funny accent you'll have seen in all those Monty Python sketches) where people are blunt to the point of artform. It's not the American flavour, where one is honour bound to offer a raised eyebrow or over-open one's eyes, to give the recipient a clue that it really is sarcasm and not to be offended - the real-life equivalent of the ;).

I now live in Australia, and I can tell you, if you think you'd have a hard time dealing with (one of) the English, you should come to Australia. They have a phrase here, called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome", and it basically means that people who think they are (if my American idiom is correct) "all that", or act like princesses, get their heads chopped off. If you say something dumb, or you take on airs, or you are generally "up yourself" in Australia, you won't survive for a week. If you act arrogantly, you'd better be right, or you'll be told you're a dickhead (probably with less polite words).

(Maybe this is opening up a new hornet's nest, but I reckon you'd have to go a long way to find a society less violent or threatening and more friendly than the Australian. Perhaps by getting things off their chest each day, things don't build up to more apocalyptic proportions ...)

I'm not saying my culture is any better than yours. How could I? Only an idiot (or an Italian president) will do that. But I am saying that my cultures (English & Australian) are no less valid than yours. Sure, one could argue that I was inappropriate in failing to adhere to your cultural norms, and should have said "but your proposition sounds a bit naive". Alternatively one could argue that you should have grokked my Englishness from my pompous language and preposterously long posts in this ng, and should therefore have understood the idiomatic foundation of my comment as it stands. Alternatively, a native Australian could argue that I was overly lenient and should have said something like "don't be a Galah!".

The fact is, we're all from different places, and if you get on a ng these days without being mindful of this, you're kind of responsible for failing to protect your ego appropriately. If you do that, and get stuck into pretty much the most contentious issue in SE, then one struggles to have sympathy with your offence. (Although I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard!)

In the past, I've found Sean brusque, and Ilya insulting and bizarre, sometimes both at once. However, having learned more about each of them from subsequent postings, I have come to like their idiosyncrasies and I've become inured to the cultural overtones in their expression. I'm sure they would have done the same with mine, if I'd had any. (That was sarcasm, btw.). It's not very difficult to do: to quote someone who always manages to say more in fewer words.

  "Well, we were [get along in peace and harmony], before you came and
started telling people how insensitive they are."


Maybe your beef is that I said that your opinion was, to rephrase, "a bit naive". If so, the offence must stand. I do think that opinion is naive. (btw, you may *not* construe this once again to take me to be saying _you_ are naive. I know virtually nothing about you, and though I run off at the mouth a lot, I am *very* careful about not stipulating conjecture as fact.)

Since debating opinion is pretty much the raison d'etre of a newsgroup, so without it we might as well, erm, ...


In the end, though, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Do you want to be liked by everyone, or do you want to take a risk (of being wrong) and learn? My assessment of self-worth is in no part dependent on the reaction I get to newsgroup posts - especially ones about goto! - nor should yours be. At the end of the day we each need to acquit ourselves to our conscience, our god, or whatever else we each hold as an arbiter of our behaviour, and if we've not done well, resolve to do better tomorrow.


And that's it from me. As I said before, this is a preposterously dull waste of time, and I plan to waste no more.

Frank, if you can consider this a gesture of open-mindedness, and an offer of some advice from someone with a moderate amount of inter-cultural experience, then that's great. Please do so.

If you must take it as more flame, then you shall likely to misconstrue anything else I, or anyone else, can say, so I suspect we'll all be just ignoring your posts so as to avoid causing any further offence.

I'm off to do some work.

Matthew


"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bhma0e$duc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Frank D. Wills wrote:
> > This used to be a polite newsgroup, a haven
> > of interest and creativty. For me, that ended
> > when I was called "very naive", just for posting
> > a rather bland opinion about goto being an
> > element of modern languages.
>
> This newsgroup still is.  Some of the people I admit are fairly frank about their opinions, sometimes bordering on rude; but then you realize that those same aggressive natures are what move things forward.  You take it with a grain of salt.  They'll get beaten up in the real world if their arrogance/aggression gets out of hand.  It's not our concern.
>
> If Matthew Wilson called you naive, well that was his opinion. Don't worry about it.  Just because he says so, doesn't mean it's true. You shouldn't care about his opinion. He doesn't know what you can or can't do.  You even called him naive back.  That doesn't mean that's true, although maybe it is ;).  Good grief, we are all "naive" in one way or another.
>
> >
> > If I had known that I were stepping on a landmine
> > by forwarding an opinion, I certainly would have
> > refrained from the post. I have been thoroughly
> > flamed at this point, and I'm sure many more
> > flames will follow this post. I now have a much
> > better understanding of this newsgroup.
>
> You got "flamed" because you were considered to be overeacting by some of the people here.  I've overreacted before too when someone made what I considered a belittling comment to me here.  It just makes it worse when you take it too seriously, though.  Best to let it slide, and feel sorry for the poor soul that thought you naive. :)
>
> > There was a busniessman that I knew at one time
> > who was the perfection of courtesy. I remarked to
> > him about that, after knowing him for some time,
> > and he responded that, no, he wasn't really like
> > that, but that he had been fooling me about being
> > nice.
>
> Believe me...That's all that courtesy often is.  If you ever thought otherwise, you were fooled. It definitely has it place, but sometimes its best for people to just be themselves instead of pretenders.  Some may not like the results, but I'd rather know a person is being forthwright than surreptitious.  This newsgroup for the most part has had a fairly good balance between courtesy and frankness.  Courtesy never did hold it back, though.
>
> You'll also notice that this newsgroup has fair number of nationalities involved, and thus the definition of courtesy is not the same amongst the members. But in the end this group does marvelously well considering the cultural variety here.
>
> > Obviously I was fooled about this newsgroup.
> > Perhaps those who have, and probably will now
> > flame me are proud and happy about doing so.
> >
> > Flame away. This isn't the newsgroup that I
> > thought it was.
> >
> > Flame away.
> >
>
> You shouldn't be fooled about this newsgroup!  It has people in it! People are fallible, emotional, arrogant, willful, conniving, selfish creatures (ouch!).  Despite having people in it, this newsgroup has done very well!
>
> If you think D has a future, please don't give up on this newsgroup just because of people! Forgive and forget.  And, no, people don't always apologize for what they say, nor do they necessarily need to.  That's just courtesy which doesn't necessarily mean they mean it if they do.
>
> Just another human being,
>
> John
>

Matthew Wilson wrote:
> This is the most immensely dull waste of time imaginable. It seems that we
> were all having lots of good fun, until Frank took something I said to mean
> something it did not.

Yes, it really got out of hand.

> If you look back, you can see that I did not say Frank was naive. I said,
> "Don't mean to offend, but this sounds terribly naive."

Good point, I slipped on that one.  There's a significant difference between the two statements.

Immensely dull as the topic is, your post was actually quite an interesting read :).

Later,

John

PS. It's just like us humans to love the complements but hate the criticism.

> Immensely dull as the topic is, your post was actually quite an interesting read :).

You're welcome. I really think we all just need to laugh a little more, mostly at ourselves ...


> PS. It's just like us humans to love the complements but hate the criticism.

Except when you're writing a book. I'm getting quite grumpy with some of my nicer reviewers being kind and all. I want it hard, vicious, and straight between the eyes!!

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bhmupr$1b0h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Immensely dull as the topic is, your post was actually quite an interesting read :).
> You're welcome. I really think we all just need to laugh a little more, mostly at ourselves ...
> > PS. It's just like us humans to love the complements but hate the criticism.
> Except when you're writing a book. I'm getting quite grumpy with some of
my
> nicer reviewers being kind and all. I want it hard, vicious, and straight between the eyes!!

I bet I've been told to f**k off online more than anyone else here! It sort of comes with the territory of my amazingly swelled head.

Bye.

Sean

"Frank D. Wills" <mail@domain.com> wrote in message news:bhm6s5$9h2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> This used to be a polite newsgroup, a haven
> of interest and creativty. For me, that ended
> when I was called "very naive", just for posting
> a rather bland opinion about goto being an
> element of modern languages.
>
> If I had known that I were stepping on a landmine
> by forwarding an opinion, I certainly would have
> refrained from the post. I have been thoroughly
> flamed at this point, and I'm sure many more
> flames will follow this post. I now have a much
> better understanding of this newsgroup.
>
> There was a busniessman that I knew at one time
> who was the perfection of courtesy. I remarked to
> him about that, after knowing him for some time,
> and he responded that, no, he wasn't really like
> that, but that he had been fooling me about being
> nice.
>
> Obviously I was fooled about this newsgroup.
> Perhaps those who have, and probably will now
> flame me are proud and happy about doing so.
>
> Flame away. This isn't the newsgroup that I
> thought it was.
>
> Flame away.

Yeah, but you have the reasoning skills to back it up.  And while you're quite strongly opinionated, it's usually based in cold, hard experience. You are rational and logical and have never, that I've seen, come off as being a prick.  So I'm surprised to get told to f**k off so much!  You'd think I'd get it more than I do...  surprisingly it's usually only a few times per year!  ;)

Sean

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bhn2ke$1h5o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> I bet I've been told to f**k off online more than anyone else here! It
sort
> of comes with the territory of my amazingly swelled head.

> Yeah, but you have the reasoning skills to back it up.  And while you're quite strongly opinionated, it's usually based in cold, hard experience. You are rational and logical and have never, that I've seen, come off as being a prick.  So I'm surprised to get told to f**k off so much!  You'd think I'd get it more than I do...  surprisingly it's usually only a few times per year!  ;)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago*:

  "I've found Sean brusque ... I have come to like [his] idiosyncrasies and
I've become inured to the cultural overtones in [his] expression"

Add to that the fact that you say some very funny things and, curse it, you're right a lot of the time. :(

Derek the Didactic Druid


* For those that do not follow British politics from afar (or near), this is what a minister will reply to a questioner who seeks to rake over old ground. How much more cool than RTFM is that!? Of course, maybe it only appeals to me because it uses more words to say the same thing. In the words of a famous talk-show psychiatrist: "But if less is more, imagine how much more more would be!"