Who favors the current D1 situation?

[Janice Caron]

On 08/03/2008, Kris <foo at bar.com> wrote:
> > I did, albeit six months ago. More to the point, I did /not/ say, and
>  > have never said: "Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant fools".
>  > That was a strawman.
>
>  BS is BS. Period. Also, you cutely cut out the appropriate part, Janice.
>  Here's my post:
>  ---
>  I believe there's at least one beauty about how Tango is written by amateurs
>  or ignorant fools, or something, all based merely upon the existence of
>  CamelCase in module names.
>  ---
>
>  See the "or something, " in there? Obviously there was no word-for-word
>  recall, yet the implied gist was conveyed.
>
>  > Now /please/ drop this vendetta.
>
>  There's no vendetta anywhere in the vicinity ... just a run-of-the mill BS
>  call-out. You drop the BS and the attitude, and you won't get called out on
>  it. Take or leave it as you choose

You misunderstand the source of my objection.

I have /no/ problem with you calling out hypocrisy, if you feel it's
your duty to do that. You may even be right - In one sense perhaps I
did leap to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence, six
months ago.

However, what I object to is being maliciously misquoted. I did /not/,
repeat, /not/, say that Tango is written by amateurs or ignorant
fools, or something, either with or without the "or something". That
is simply untrue.

The difficulty is, every time you paraphrase me, you change the
meaning in a way which fails to convey my original intent, and indeed
which conveys a completely different message. That constitutes putting
words into my mouth. I realise you feel that the words "or something"
constitute a suitable disclaimer, but they don't. Really, they don't.

In summary then: /no/ problem with your calling out hypocrisy; /big/
problem with being misquoted. (There's also no need for it: I'm here -
you can just /ask/ me my opinion). If you could cut back on the
misquoting, we'll get along just fine.