assume, assert, enforce, @safe

[David Bregman via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 4 August 2014 at 00:59:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> I find it to the point, clear, and funny. Expanded it would go 
> like "I see more similarities than differences, and a definite 
> convergence dictated by market pressure."

I find this to be a non-sequitur. Firstly, making a joke to avoid
answering a direct question is hardly what I'd call "to the
point", regardless of how funny it may be. Secondly, even if I
interpreted it as you did, it still misses the point. The
discussion was about strict logical semantic equivalence of two
concepts, assert and assume. How can "I see more similarities
than differences, and a definite convergence dictated by market
pressure" be a response to a black and white question about
semantic equivalence?

> I find it highly inappropriate to qualify that response as 
> intellectually dishonest even after discounting for a variety 
> of factors, and an apology would be in order.

Sure, that post alone isn't sufficient, but Walter argued much of
the discussion in an unfair manner: dismissive one liners,
fallacious arguments, strawman, even straight up begging the
question. We are talking about several dozens of posts here.
There was more than enough time spent to converge on agreement,
if both sides intended to do so. Anyways I know this is all
completely pointless to say, no one is going to believe it
for one second because it just sounds like poor sportsmanship.
For anyone who actually cares, you just need to read the threads
and judge for yourself. From where I stand though, no apology is
required.