On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 15:06:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>> Let's end this trouble. There is a lot of work that awaits to be done.
>
> I limit myself to

That was cheap, you have been using better techniques before :)

> And, of course, the "D-crowd" is perfectly right assuming a newcomer to know their internal communication codes - while - the newcomer, of course, is plain wrong when assuming that words carry the meaning they carry for the rest of the world. Sure. Strikes me as brilliantly logical. I should bow before so much wisdom. How does one bow around here? By farting?

I have been reading this newsgroup for ~ an year before writing first comment not related to asking questions about D spec. Probably about two years until I felt I can participate in discussions in a constructive way. Still keep failing sometimes.

Don't expect that from you. Still answers the question. Actually, most self-regulating communities I have been part of worked that way.

And no, right now I don't have any good intentions about you. Can't state it anymore clear. I am not an official D spokesperson and I can afford to reason about people only by their words and deeds, ignoring all PR crap. One day you may do something worthy and I will regret it. Until then you are a miserable troll with disgusting attitude.

Dicebot

"Have a nice day and be sure that I'll gladly listen to you as
soon as it's about D ;)"

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:06:17 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 14:08:47 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 14:21:45 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>
>> .. and have you taken that advice as it was intended?  With good intent?  Or are you still assuming the worst in people?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> No, I did not take the advice. Partly because it doesn't mean and/or concern me, partly because I tend to carefully select from whom I take advice.

I believe it should concern you.  I believe it contributed to what happened here.  I believe you would have a much more pleasant time on internet forums (in general) if you took it on board (not that I have any evidence that you don't, however can you honestly say this is the first time this has happened to you?)

Side-note; it should not matter to you "who" is giving the advice, you should judge the advice on it's merits, or evaluate it yourself.

> For the rest of your post: Yeah, right, *I* have got it wrong. Of course. You bunch of assholes.
> ("asshole", of course, meaning "esteemed colleagues" but I won't tell you that until later).

I understand, you're blowing off steam.  You're directing it in the wrong direction here however.  To the point being made; 1 person cannot define the "norm", you cannot redefine "asshole" all by yourself in any meaningful way - that was the point I was making, and the distinction which is important here.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 16:28:58 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>> No, I did not take the advice. Partly because it doesn't mean and/or concern me, partly because I tend to carefully select from whom I take advice.
>
> I believe it should concern you.  I believe it contributed to what happened here.  I believe you would have a much more pleasant time on internet forums (in general) if you took it on board (not that I have any evidence that you don't, however can you honestly say this is the first time this has happened to you?)

I doesn't concern me because I do not entertain the assumption of an evil (to me) world, because I do *not* assume anyone here having bad intentions towards myself (from the beginning. That might be different now)


>> For the rest of your post: Yeah, right, *I* have got it wrong. Of course. You bunch of assholes.
>> ("asshole", of course, meaning "esteemed colleagues" but I won't tell you that until later).
>
> I understand, you're blowing off steam.  You're directing it in the wrong direction here however.

Thanks for walking into my trap (put there for innocent illustrative purposes only).

> ...  To the point being made; 1 person cannot define the "norm", you cannot redefine "asshole" all by yourself in any meaningful way - that was the point I was making, and the distinction which is important here.

Uhum. Well, it was only 1 person abusing the word "destroy". So it *is* just 1 person that did take that liberty - and you evidently think that's OK.
Furthermore: If you are right, how many persons are needed? I don't think it's a quantitative issue.

What you really say is: You, the newcomer, entered our group and by doing that you have to submit to our rules up to the point of redefining the well established meaning of common words. EAT IT!
This not only is untenable by being quite close to rude dictatorship but it's also nonsensical because a newcomer can naturally not know the local quirks and habits, no matter his good will to adapt.

Turn and bend it as you please, all the funny groups tactics to make Mr. A's rude habit look nice (an myself guilty) fail. And, surprise, some of you actually *expected* it to become problematic and said so.

I do not even have a major problem with it. After all, it's common and wide spread group dynamics that can be (and have been) experienced all over the world. You have your holy little "D crowd" living room and want to impose your own little rules and want to celebrate and show loyalty to the great masters of that "D crowd" living romm? Great, just go ahead, no problem with me.

But then stand with it and don't try to paint it nicely with pseudo logical, pseudo psychological or pseudo social explanations.
Funny, I have been lectured, fought and even attacked (e.g. as a troll and a miserable creature) and it seems it just didn't strike you that the solution might be as simple as Mr. A. saying (what others already indicated) "Sorry, Ramon, it wasn't meant negative, quite the contrary, but I understand that it could be taken as negative and injust due to the usual meaning of 'destroy'. Feel welcome here".

And I'm still quite reasonable, polite, and friendly and I'm still fair and open and praising not only D but even "evil" Mr. A. and calling his work great and even brilliant.

To avoid misunderstandings: This is my opinion concerning the matter at hand. I did and do not want to judge or attack you as a person. While I have a clear and by no means positive impression of what you said, I did and do not think your intentions were in any way evil or negative. Actually I assume that your intention was peaceful and constructive.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:11:27 +0100, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 16:28:58 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>>> No, I did not take the advice. Partly because it doesn't mean and/or concern me, partly because I tend to carefully select from whom I take advice.
>>
>> I believe it should concern you.  I believe it contributed to what happened here.  I believe you would have a much more pleasant time on internet forums (in general) if you took it on board (not that I have any evidence that you don't, however can you honestly say this is the first time this has happened to you?)
>
> I doesn't concern me because I do not entertain the assumption of an evil (to me) world, because I do *not* assume anyone here having bad intentions towards myself (from the beginning. That might be different now)

Right.  So, what you meant to say earlier was that you were already following the advice, excellent.  So, why then assume Andrei was insulting you?  The two don't add up.

>>> For the rest of your post: Yeah, right, *I* have got it wrong. Of course. You bunch of assholes.
>>> ("asshole", of course, meaning "esteemed colleagues" but I won't tell you that until later).
>>
>> I understand, you're blowing off steam.  You're directing it in the wrong direction here however.
>
> Thanks for walking into my trap (put there for innocent illustrative purposes only).

What trap?  I knew what you were doing :P  I assumed you weren't attempting to insult me, was I wrong?

>> ...  To the point being made; 1 person cannot define the "norm", you cannot redefine "asshole" all by yourself in any meaningful way - that was the point I was making, and the distinction which is important here.
>
> Uhum. Well, it was only 1 person abusing the word "destroy". So it *is* just 1 person that did take that liberty - and you evidently think that's OK.

No, it's not just 1 person (ab)using the word "destroy".  That word is part of the fabric of this forum, all the regular posters and long time lurkers know it, and some use it.

> Furthermore: If you are right, how many persons are needed? I don't think it's a quantitative issue.

The regular posters of this forum make up a majority, that majority use that word in that way.  Every group or society defines it's own norms, generally based on a majority "vote".  There are exceptions, and religion tends to warp things but in this case it's fairly simple.

> What you really say is: You, the newcomer, entered our group and by doing that you have to submit to our rules up to the point of redefining the well established meaning of common words. EAT IT!

This is a newsgroup/forum and you're more of less free to do what you like - much like society.  However, if your behaviour is anti-social (as defined by the norms of this society) then you will continue to cause friction.  This is no different to any other social group or society.

> This not only is untenable by being quite close to rude dictatorship but it's also nonsensical because a newcomer can naturally not know the local quirks and habits, no matter his good will to adapt.

No one assumes a newcomer will know all the "rules", all that is hoped for is that they will do the decent thing and assume good intent and proceed accordingly.  Many people lurk for a long while before posting, and learn the "rules" that way.  Others learn as they go, without "being offended" in the process.

> Turn and bend it as you please, all the funny groups tactics to make Mr. A's rude habit look nice (an myself guilty) fail. And, surprise, some of you actually *expected* it to become problematic and said so.

There are no tactics being employed here.  Yes, many realise "destroy" could be miss-understood, but your reaction is, IMO, blowing it out of all proportion.

> I do not even have a major problem with it. After all, it's common and wide spread group dynamics that can be (and have been) experienced all over the world. You have your holy little "D crowd" living room and want to impose your own little rules and want to celebrate and show loyalty to the great masters of that "D crowd" living romm? Great, just go ahead, no problem with me.

I've been posting since 2004 (or something) and I've never seen this "holy little D crowd" you describe.

Some posters opinions do tend to hold more weight than others but this is a natural consequence of them saying something worth listening to more often than not.  Naturally, newcomers don't have this and it takes time to earn.

If you think that's some sort of clique then fine, but there is very little "in-house" arse kissing around here, in fact quite the opposite as we are invited to "destroy" each others ideas on a regular basis.  Walter and Andrei, the two largest contributors frequently argue in public and private.  Nothing is sacred, except perhaps a well reasoned argument (devoid of fallacy and abuse).

<snip>.. I have nothing constructive to say to the remainder.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Regan Heath

You try to wrap it nicely but in the end you just prove my hypothesis right. The newcomer not only has to know all local habits and quirks of the group but he also has to know the history behind it. As a helpful hint you pick up dicebots hint that a newcomer probably should be read only for a while.

Great. And what exactly kept you away from formalizing that, such making it known to newcomers?

You try different funny tricks on me, for instance, by mixing up responsabilities. If this group has rules - which it is perfectly entitled to have - then it's the groups responsability to make those rules known in advance. It is *not* the newcomers responsability to somehow find out about them, possibly by getting accused of destruction.

Another little trick of yours is, I'm putting it bluntly, to play the card "We are many, you are just 1; we are here since years, you are new - so bend over and obey".

Frankly, the original matter doesn't even matter that much anymore to me. I've since quite a while put it aside as "he's a cheap asshole with micro-alpha syndrome but he has done very useful and partly brilliant work. That's all I want from him. So what?".
What drives me now is the desperate, abstruse and stubborn group dynamics at play. And no, I'm not doing that just for the fun of it; it can actually be a useful service (and it does have a certain relation to the original problem).

In two words: Context counts. (Which btw. is something you should like as you try playing it a lot).
In this context here group seniority might be a big thing. Or particular technical skills. As soon as we leave the area of code, however, the cards get mixed again and who was big then might be surprisingly small. In this discussion here, for instance, the capability to analyze and recognize e.g. social and rhetorical mechanisms is way more important than D skills (No suprise. After all it *is* a group, social and human thing).

To put it bluntly: Chances are that I can take apart whatever smart tricks you come up with. But why, what for?
Why don't you yourself just stick to your own advice and assume - and correctly  assume - that I have no bad intentions?
You even have proof! If I had bad intentions or just were out for a fight or revenge, I would certainly not have recognized A's work as brilliant and lauded his book. Nor would I quite politely and patiently discuss and respond to statements that I, no offense intended, perceive as, uh, less than intellectually exciting.

Take what I offer. Because it's good and because you will definitely not succeed in getting any femtogram more from me.

a) Mr. A. did act in an unfair und unjustified way, no matter how you try to bend it. Maybe what he did was well known and usual here. But not toward myself.

b) It's long forgiven and I'm in a peaceful and constructive state of mind. But don't you dare to convince me that Mr. A. was right and I should bend over and adapt to absurd group rules that demand inter alia precognition and possibly telepathy.

Can we now finally return to discussing D, algorithms, code and the like or do you insist to educate me and to continue your route toward nada, nothing, zilch?

Just consider me a miserable creature and really ugly on top of it if that helps.

On 08/22/2013 10:49 AM, Ramon wrote:
> Dicebot
>
> "Have a nice day and be sure that I'll gladly listen to you as
> soon as it's about D ;)"
>

I can't decide if this is obvious trolling or a legitimate cultural clash...

If it is trolling, It's the most successful that I've ever seen on this newsgroup.

So.. Congrats.  I guess?

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 19:20:37 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> Regan Heath
>
> You try to wrap it nicely but in the end you just prove my hypothesis right. The newcomer not only has to know all local habits and quirks of the group but he also has to know the history behind it. As a helpful hint you pick up dicebots hint that a newcomer probably should be read only for a while.
>
> Great. And what exactly kept you away from formalizing that, such making it known to newcomers?
>
> You try different funny tricks on me, for instance, by mixing up responsabilities. If this group has rules - which it is perfectly entitled to have - then it's the groups responsability to make those rules known in advance. It is *not* the newcomers responsability to somehow find out about them, possibly by getting accused of destruction.
>
> Another little trick of yours is, I'm putting it bluntly, to play the card "We are many, you are just 1; we are here since years, you are new - so bend over and obey".
>
> Frankly, the original matter doesn't even matter that much anymore to me. I've since quite a while put it aside as "he's a cheap asshole with micro-alpha syndrome but he has done very useful and partly brilliant work. That's all I want from him. So what?".
> What drives me now is the desperate, abstruse and stubborn group dynamics at play. And no, I'm not doing that just for the fun of it; it can actually be a useful service (and it does have a certain relation to the original problem).
>
> In two words: Context counts. (Which btw. is something you should like as you try playing it a lot).
> In this context here group seniority might be a big thing. Or particular technical skills. As soon as we leave the area of code, however, the cards get mixed again and who was big then might be surprisingly small. In this discussion here, for instance, the capability to analyze and recognize e.g. social and rhetorical mechanisms is way more important than D skills (No suprise. After all it *is* a group, social and human thing).
>
> To put it bluntly: Chances are that I can take apart whatever smart tricks you come up with. But why, what for?
> Why don't you yourself just stick to your own advice and assume - and correctly  assume - that I have no bad intentions?
> You even have proof! If I had bad intentions or just were out for a fight or revenge, I would certainly not have recognized A's work as brilliant and lauded his book. Nor would I quite politely and patiently discuss and respond to statements that I, no offense intended, perceive as, uh, less than intellectually exciting.
>
> Take what I offer. Because it's good and because you will definitely not succeed in getting any femtogram more from me.
>
> a) Mr. A. did act in an unfair und unjustified way, no matter how you try to bend it. Maybe what he did was well known and usual here. But not toward myself.
>
> b) It's long forgiven and I'm in a peaceful and constructive state of mind. But don't you dare to convince me that Mr. A. was right and I should bend over and adapt to absurd group rules that demand inter alia precognition and possibly telepathy.
>
> Can we now finally return to discussing D, algorithms, code and the like or do you insist to educate me and to continue your route toward nada, nothing, zilch?
>
> Just consider me a miserable creature and really ugly on top of it if that helps.

Nice tantrum :D

Wise Words are spoken unto thee "Grow a pair and move on"

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 01:14:19 UTC, WiseWords wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 19:20:37 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>> Regan Heath
>>
>> You try to wrap it nicely but in the end you just prove my hypothesis right. The newcomer not only has to know all local habits and quirks of the group but he also has to know the history behind it. As a helpful hint you pick up dicebots hint that a newcomer probably should be read only for a while.
>>
>> Great. And what exactly kept you away from formalizing that, such making it known to newcomers?
>>
>> You try different funny tricks on me, for instance, by mixing up responsabilities. If this group has rules - which it is perfectly entitled to have - then it's the groups responsability to make those rules known in advance. It is *not* the newcomers responsability to somehow find out about them, possibly by getting accused of destruction.
>>
>> Another little trick of yours is, I'm putting it bluntly, to play the card "We are many, you are just 1; we are here since years, you are new - so bend over and obey".
>>
>> Frankly, the original matter doesn't even matter that much anymore to me. I've since quite a while put it aside as "he's a cheap asshole with micro-alpha syndrome but he has done very useful and partly brilliant work. That's all I want from him. So what?".
>> What drives me now is the desperate, abstruse and stubborn group dynamics at play. And no, I'm not doing that just for the fun of it; it can actually be a useful service (and it does have a certain relation to the original problem).
>>
>> In two words: Context counts. (Which btw. is something you should like as you try playing it a lot).
>> In this context here group seniority might be a big thing. Or particular technical skills. As soon as we leave the area of code, however, the cards get mixed again and who was big then might be surprisingly small. In this discussion here, for instance, the capability to analyze and recognize e.g. social and rhetorical mechanisms is way more important than D skills (No suprise. After all it *is* a group, social and human thing).
>>
>> To put it bluntly: Chances are that I can take apart whatever smart tricks you come up with. But why, what for?
>> Why don't you yourself just stick to your own advice and assume - and correctly  assume - that I have no bad intentions?
>> You even have proof! If I had bad intentions or just were out for a fight or revenge, I would certainly not have recognized A's work as brilliant and lauded his book. Nor would I quite politely and patiently discuss and respond to statements that I, no offense intended, perceive as, uh, less than intellectually exciting.
>>
>> Take what I offer. Because it's good and because you will definitely not succeed in getting any femtogram more from me.
>>
>> a) Mr. A. did act in an unfair und unjustified way, no matter how you try to bend it. Maybe what he did was well known and usual here. But not toward myself.
>>
>> b) It's long forgiven and I'm in a peaceful and constructive state of mind. But don't you dare to convince me that Mr. A. was right and I should bend over and adapt to absurd group rules that demand inter alia precognition and possibly telepathy.
>>
>> Can we now finally return to discussing D, algorithms, code and the like or do you insist to educate me and to continue your route toward nada, nothing, zilch?
>>
>> Just consider me a miserable creature and really ugly on top of it if that helps.
>
> Nice tantrum :D
>
> Wise Words are spoken unto thee "Grow a pair and move on"

Well, that's a bit harsh. Can we close this thread?

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 01:17:55 UTC, bsd wrote:
> Well, that's a bit harsh. Can we close this thread?

Aren't you a bit harsh here?

After all, as a quick forum search suggests, "Wise Words", or more correctly the person who usually writes under another screen name here made the effort to bravely use another screen name in order to ... uhm ... troll.

I guess "Wise Words" didn't mean me but rather told us about an experience where someone told him "Grow a pair and move on". Evidently he didn't follow at least the first part of the advice given to him.

Amusing.