Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[Ramon]

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)


>> 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).

> ...  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.
Furthermore: If you are right, how many persons are needed? I 
don't think it's a quantitative issue.

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 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.

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.

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.

But then stand with it and don't try to paint it nicely with 
pseudo logical, pseudo psychological or pseudo social 
explanations.
Funny, I have been lectured, fought and even attacked (e.g. as a 
troll and a miserable creature) and it seems it just didn't 
strike you that the solution might be as simple as Mr. A. saying 
(what others already indicated) "Sorry, Ramon, it wasn't meant 
negative, quite the contrary, but I understand that it could be 
taken as negative and injust due to the usual meaning of 
'destroy'. Feel welcome here".

And I'm still quite reasonable, polite, and friendly and I'm 
still fair and open and praising not only D but even "evil" Mr. 
A. and calling his work great and even brilliant.

To avoid misunderstandings: This is my opinion concerning the 
matter at hand. I did and do not want to judge or attack you as a 
person. While I have a clear and by no means positive impression 
of what you said, I did and do not think your intentions were in 
any way evil or negative. Actually I assume that your intention 
was peaceful and constructive.