Walter's annoying habits

[Stewart Gordon]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:emgj1d$16pp$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put 
>> into a "less inflammatory fashion"?
> 
> Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up.
> 
> One thing I've noticed you do is using "us" and "we" to mean "me" and "I". 
> "It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy _us_." 
> "Why won't you tell _us_ why?"  It's a way of trying to make it sound like 
> you're not alone, like more people support you than it seems.  The thing is, 
> most of the time you _are_ posting alone, and it just comes across as 
> presumptuous.  Just because these things annoy _you_, they don't necessarily 
> annoy everyone else.  What, do you expect everyone else to just jump on the 
> Walter-bashing bandwagon?

True, they are things that annoy me, but to imply that I was the only 
one seemed silly.  Besides, it wouldn't make much sense to invite 
contributions from others to a list of things that annoy _me_.

<snip>
> Okay, let's keep going.  You latch onto minor issues that very few other 
> people really care about and don't let them go.  opEquals returning bool vs. 
> int?  How long has _that_ one been going?

Latching onto "minor" issues - is there anything wrong with that?
Not letting them go - my last comment on it was half a month ago, and to 
add good reasons for it to the subject seemed reasonable.

> You're a complete ass to newcomers who don't understand the way we do things 
> around here.  Case in point:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=45445
> 
> (And there's that 'us' again: "Don't just tell us that something gives an 
> error, tell _us_ _what the error is_!")

So you think the person who I was responding to should've told me and 
nobody else?

> That's all I can think of for now.
> 
>> Not true.  I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time 
>> for 1.0 to wait until it's ready.
> 
> And at the same time you've posted all kinds of "when is it time to freeze 
> features for 1.0?" messages. 

Yes.  Freezing the features so that we can concentrate on getting the 
features we have properly specified and implemented.

> Walter has finally decided when he's frozen 
> features for 1.0 -- now! -- and yet you criticize him for it.  Make up your 
> mind. 

Please show me your evidence that I've seen any such statement from Walter.

Stewart.