Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[WiseWords]

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 19:20:37 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> 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.

Nice tantrum :D

Wise Words are spoken unto thee "Grow a pair and move on"