Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[Regan Heath]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11:28 +0100, Ramon <spam at thanks.no> wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 09:10:33 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:46:33 +0100, Ramon <spam at thanks.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, where I live "to destroy" has a pretty clear and very negative  
>>> meaning.
>>> I took that post (of Mr. Alexandrescu) as very rude and condescending  
>>> and I do not intend to change my communication habits so as to  
>>> understand "to destroy" as a positive statement or even a compliment.
>>
>> Have you heard the phrase "when in Rome..".  Seriously, you would  
>> rather assume a negative meaning/intent even after someone has taken  
>> the time to explain the intent/usage of the word/phrase in this grand  
>> forum?
>>
>> I sense that you may be beyond reasonable advice at this point?
>>  But, if not..
>>
>> Always start by assuming good intent, if you're right (and you will be  
>> 90% of the time) no problem.  If you're wrong, well at least you've not  
>> gotten worked up about it (so they have failed in their goal) and  
>> chances are it will annoy the abuser even more that you haven't (so  
>> ultimately, you win).
>>
>> Communication in written form is fraught with pitfalls, and this thread  
>> demonstrates how comments can be taken in completely the wrong way.   
>> Dicebot's "I am dangerously close to hating you." was meant in a  
>> friendly way, /you/ decided not to read it that way.  Likewise Andrei's  
>> style is abrupt but there are good reasons for this, none of which  
>> include the goal of offending but /you/ have chosen to read them that  
>> way.
>>
>> Sure, more effort could be taken to make it clearer with excess smileys  
>> etc.  But, that stuff isn't necessary for communicating the content,  
>> and isn't necessary between established forum members, and isn't  
>> necessary if everyone just assumes good intent from the outset.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Regan
>
>
> Wow. Now I even get general advice for my life like "Always start
> by assuming good intent".

.. and have you taken that advice as it was intended?  With good intent?   
Or are you still assuming the worst in people?

> How about some honesty?

Who isn't being honest?

> It happens to everybody of us. We hadn't any bad intentions but,
> alas, someone feels offended, improperly treated, etc.
> There is exactly 1 proper reaction for a responsible adult: To
> honestly look "Did I contribute to that?" and if so, to explain
> oneself.
>
> It would have cost pretty nothing to Mr. A. to simply say "OOps.
> Didn't mean any bad. When I say 'destroy' it's actually in
> between an invitation to continue hitting with constructive
> criticism and a compliment. Weird habit of mine". Not even a
> "sorry" would be needed.

The issue is that you've got this totally backwards.

In some countries people carry bodily fluids around in a small square of  
cloth in their pockets, in others they blow them straight onto the side  
walk.  If one is the norm and you're offended by it does someone owe you  
an apology?

Here, on this forum, "destroy" has a well known meaning which is the  
"norm".  If someone uses it, and you are offended, do they owe you an  
apology?

The answer in both case, IMO, is "no".

<snip>

I can't think of anything constructive to say in response to the rest of  
that, except that you seem to have a very different view of this community  
than I do...

R

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