Who favors the current D1 situation?

[Kris]

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