Who favors the current D1 situation?

[lurker]

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.




Kris Wrote:

> "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
> 
> 
>