Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[Ramon]

Regan Heath

You try to wrap it nicely but in the end you just prove my 
hypothesis right. The newcomer not only has to know all local 
habits and quirks of the group but he also has to know the 
history behind it. As a helpful hint you pick up dicebots hint 
that a newcomer probably should be read only for a while.

Great. And what exactly kept you away from formalizing that, such 
making it known to newcomers?

You try different funny tricks on me, for instance, by mixing up 
responsabilities. If this group has rules - which it is perfectly 
entitled to have - then it's the groups responsability to make 
those rules known in advance. It is *not* the newcomers 
responsability to somehow find out about them, possibly by 
getting accused of destruction.

Another little trick of yours is, I'm putting it bluntly, to play 
the card "We are many, you are just 1; we are here since years, 
you are new - so bend over and obey".

Frankly, the original matter doesn't even matter that much 
anymore to me. I've since quite a while put it aside as "he's a 
cheap asshole with micro-alpha syndrome but he has done very 
useful and partly brilliant work. That's all I want from him. So 
what?".
What drives me now is the desperate, abstruse and stubborn group 
dynamics at play. And no, I'm not doing that just for the fun of 
it; it can actually be a useful service (and it does have a 
certain relation to the original problem).

In two words: Context counts. (Which btw. is something you should 
like as you try playing it a lot).
In this context here group seniority might be a big thing. Or 
particular technical skills. As soon as we leave the area of 
code, however, the cards get mixed again and who was big then 
might be surprisingly small. In this discussion here, for 
instance, the capability to analyze and recognize e.g. social and 
rhetorical mechanisms is way more important than D skills (No 
suprise. After all it *is* a group, social and human thing).

To put it bluntly: Chances are that I can take apart whatever 
smart tricks you come up with. But why, what for?
Why don't you yourself just stick to your own advice and assume - 
and correctly  assume - that I have no bad intentions?
You even have proof! If I had bad intentions or just were out for 
a fight or revenge, I would certainly not have recognized A's 
work as brilliant and lauded his book. Nor would I quite politely 
and patiently discuss and respond to statements that I, no 
offense intended, perceive as, uh, less than intellectually 
exciting.

Take what I offer. Because it's good and because you will 
definitely not succeed in getting any femtogram more from me.

a) Mr. A. did act in an unfair und unjustified way, no matter how 
you try to bend it. Maybe what he did was well known and usual 
here. But not toward myself.

b) It's long forgiven and I'm in a peaceful and constructive 
state of mind. But don't you dare to convince me that Mr. A. was 
right and I should bend over and adapt to absurd group rules that 
demand inter alia precognition and possibly telepathy.

Can we now finally return to discussing D, algorithms, code and 
the like or do you insist to educate me and to continue your 
route toward nada, nothing, zilch?

Just consider me a miserable creature and really ugly on top of 
it if that helps.