of Sock Puppets and Straw Men

[David B. Held]

Kris wrote:
> "David B. Held" <dheld at codelogicconsulting.com> wrote
>>> Let me ask you: Did you make that post, David? Be honest about it.
>>
>> Ok, ok, I admit it!  I did all of it!!!  I just wanted to stir the pot, so 
>> first, I wrote an anonymous post that I knew would bait people like you 
>> into responding in exactly the way I predicted.  Then, to avert suspicion, 
>> I tried it again, but this time, did it in a clumsy way that was easily 
>> traceable!  You figured it all out!  You are so brilliant!  A sincere 
>> question deserves a sincere answer.
> 
> I asked a simply question, and there's really no need to take this attitude. 

You asked a simple question, but I didn't see one ounce of sincerity in 
it.  I just got done writing several long posts about the evils of 
anonymous posting, and now you want to accuse *me* of being the poster?? 
  Obviously, the original poster was far more sophisticated in the ways 
of evading detection than I was, so let me ask you this...what would be 
my reward for then making a clumsy *not-so-anonymous* post??  There are 
only two conclusions to be made here:

1) you didn't take 5 seconds to think this through and realize that only 
an utter moron would perform the sequence of events:

   a) post as phango@
   b) post as dheld@, "anonymously"
   c) admit that b) was a ruse

2) you were not being sincere

Now, you are saying that 2) is not the case, so you are basically 
calling me a complete idiot for trying to pull off 1).  Your faux 
"sincerity" is extremely annoying and does you no credit, and I take the 
insult quite personally.

> I will admit to being saddened by the levels that you claim to stoop to, 
> though I guess I should not be surprised given what you've previously 
> claimed:

You're "saddened"?  Oh, poor, poor crocodile...look at those big tears...

> 1) that you deliberately subverted the integrity of the ng via your 
> sock-puppet spoof
> 2) that you'd be more than willing to do so again

At least I'm honest.  You've never disclaimed being phango at .  Since you 
seem to want a straight declaration, here it is: I AM NOT THE PERSON 
POSTING AS phango at .  Let me ask you: Did you make that post, Kris? Be 
honest about it (because if I didn't add this clause, you wouldn't be).

> now you claim:
> 
> 3) trolling against Tango is fair game for you (phangowant)

Ok, since you seem to lack the basic comprehension of literary devices, 
I'll spell this one out for you in excruciating detail: my "admission" 
above is something called "sarcasm".  Here's a good reference: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm.  I think it's ok for me to quote 
an excerpt:

     Sarcasm[A] is the sneering, sly, jesting, or mocking of a
     person, situation or thing.

I felt that was all that your "sincere" query deserved as a response. 
So to be perfectly explicit (since that seems to be what you need, in 
your I'm-playing-literal-and-naive mode), this is a false conclusion 
because I am not phango@, I do not endorse anything phango@ says, I am 
opposed to trolling, and I have nothing against Tango the library, nor 
do I endorse attacking the library.  On the other hand, I think every 
piece of work is open for criticism (certainly including anything I've 
written), but that is different from an attack in that a criticism has 
technical merit and an attack does not.

> 4) doing so with the intent to generate a flame fest was your goal ("baiting 
> people ... exactly the way I predicted")

Kris, if this is really a sincere interpretation of my words, I have to 
wonder if you simply have a hard time communicating with other people 
via idioms and expressions and forms of speech which are not literal?  I 
understand that there are specific cognitive defects which can lead to 
this situation, but usually the are the result of some developmental 
disability that is more systemic in nature.  You don't seem to merely be 
a high-functioning autistic or Aspberger's patient, but I don't get to 
see you in your normal milieu, so I can't make any kind of guess as to 
your condition.

> [...]
> Given those elements, one could be forgiven for concluding that your 
> innacurate analogy regarding Boost and Tango was posted with similar 
> malevolent intent. Too bad, since it made for an otherwise interesting read.

Yes, by comparing Boost to Tango, I wanted to heap aspersions on Tango. 
  Clearly, Boost is a simmering pile of dung, and by association, I'm 
saying that Tango is crap.  It's a totally unflattering comparison, and 
one for which Tango is most undeserving.  You have persuaded me to 
retract my comparison and say that Tango is nothing at all like Boost in 
any way, shape, or form.  In fact, it's more like the opposite of Boost. 
  Are you happy?

> [...]
> Thanks. Well, given the claims you've made so far, I'd say the NG is an 
> inappropriate place to conduct any kind of rational discourse. I mean, 
> what's the point if people like you are more than willing to (as you've 
> described) subvert and/or pervert the environment? I (perhaps ignorantly) 
> thought it was a place for D enthusiasts to discuss related topics, rather 
> than for those with some kind of twisted agenda. That's too bad.

Yes, it is too bad.  Apparently, all the "rational" discourse goes on in 
IRC, which is clearly where the D newsgroup should migrate (not the 
least of all because *you* are there).  If only the perverts and the 
subverts would go away, the D newsgroup would become a playground of 
rational discourse by D enthusiasts.  My "twisted agenda" has rained 
down hellfire and brimstone on the face of D, and everything has come 
grinding to a halt.  Oh, woe is we!  Woe is we!  Let us put on sackcloth 
and ashes and mourn for the death of our beloved newsgroup...

Kris, let me remind you that the instigator of this thread was that 
anonymous coward posting as phango at .  And what fanned the flames was 
when you and Jeff accused Janice of being that coward (though you 
yourself still have not disclaimed being phango@).  At that point, the 
thread left the realm of "rational discourse" and ceased being about D 
at all.  Trying to impute the nature of the subsequent posts to the rest 
of the newsgroup is about as irrational as one can get (and you have 
shown me just how irrational one can get).  For instance, I invite you 
to show how I have "subverted" or "perverted" the environment outside of 
this thread.  Go ahead and try.  I'm calling you out.

> [...]
> Yes, I'm aware how the business environment operates. And yes, Tango will 
> always be a free product as far as I'm concerned. Why would it not be? Tango 
> exists because we are D enthusiasts.

Oh, that's interesting.  Do all the other Tango contributors agree with 
you, or are you the official spokesman for the library?  What if someone 
else tried to sell Tango with a license?  What would you do?

> [...]
> There's really no need to utterly wig-out, is there? I asked a perfectly 
> innocent, and what I thought to be reasonable, question.

I'm sorry, Kris.  I thought your question was as "sincere" as the others 
in your last post and I reacted accordingly.  We obviously have a major 
disagreement over what constitutes "sincerity".  Since your definition 
seems to flip-flop between reading sarcastic things literally and taking 
them as they were intended, it's very hard to tell which statements you 
make are sincere, and which are not.  Perhaps you could do me a small 
favor and mark different passages that you write and respond to as 
[literal] or [figurative].  Then we would be on the same page.

> I mean, you might have had far more experience in that arena than all of
> Tango put together, and could thus be in a position to offer lots of
> solid advice on technical concerns too.

I see...and you would accept my criticisms with the same level of 
respect you afford Janice?  I'm not sure I know of any library author 
willing to take you up on your "offer".

> I asked only because you seemed  to be hinting in that direction.. However,
> I'll take your reply to be an  affirmation in the negative sense.

Oh, interesting...here you seem to be able to read between the lines 
after all!  Amazing!!!  Mr. Literal was able to properly detect sarcasm! 
  It's a miracle!  Notice how selectively you do it, though.  When you 
read one sarcastic passage literally and another figuratively, it casts 
serious doubts over your "sincerity".

Unlike you, Kris, I feel no need to trumpet my credentials or declare 
how magnificent my work is.  It's easy enough for someone to find 
different things that I've worked on, if for some reason that interests 
them.  But you won't ever see me spell it out here, as a matter of 
principle.  I've always felt that if you need to say how great your work 
is, it's because there aren't enough other people saying it for you.

> Thank you for clarifying my original two questions regarding your posts over 
> Tango.

Oh, you're most welcome, Mr. Literal-When-It's-Convenient.  You think 
you are so clever what with your faux innocence and crocodile tears, and 
yet you freely admit that you are a prickly person that does not always 
play well with others.  Why pretend some of the time and not others?  I 
would respect you a lot more if you didn't play these "I'm going to be 
naive and innocent and literal now because it suits me" games and just 
stuck to your "I don't care what people think" line.

Dave