Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[Regan Heath]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:11:27 +0100, Ramon <spam at 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/