Walter's annoying habits

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:emgj1d$16pp$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put 
> into a "less inflammatory fashion"?

Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up.

One thing I've noticed you do is using "us" and "we" to mean "me" and "I". 
"It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy _us_." 
"Why won't you tell _us_ why?"  It's a way of trying to make it sound like 
you're not alone, like more people support you than it seems.  The thing is, 
most of the time you _are_ posting alone, and it just comes across as 
presumptuous.  Just because these things annoy _you_, they don't necessarily 
annoy everyone else.  What, do you expect everyone else to just jump on the 
Walter-bashing bandwagon?

Another thing (at least on this list) is the spelling issue.  (Oh, and 
there's that 'we' again: "Apparently never learning from the spelling 
corrections _we_ keep
giving him.")  Is this really necessary?  And this gem, from bugzilla 631:

---------
Walter, please learn the correct spellings of these words!  Or if that's too
hard, at least unlearn the incorrect spellings!  (Even better, get yourself 
an
editor with a spellchecker!)
---------

Oh, wow, wow, wow.  Yeah, that's a REALLY nice way to say it.  Insult his 
intelligence and order him around!  Do you honestly think that this is a 
good way to effect change in this language?

Okay, let's keep going.  You latch onto minor issues that very few other 
people really care about and don't let them go.  opEquals returning bool vs. 
int?  How long has _that_ one been going?

You're a complete ass to newcomers who don't understand the way we do things 
around here.  Case in point:

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=45445

(And there's that 'us' again: "Don't just tell us that something gives an 
error, tell _us_ _what the error is_!")

That's all I can think of for now.

> Not true.  I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time 
> for 1.0 to wait until it's ready.

And at the same time you've posted all kinds of "when is it time to freeze 
features for 1.0?" messages.  Walter has finally decided when he's frozen 
features for 1.0 -- now! -- and yet you criticize him for it.  Make up your 
mind.