Possible solution to template bloat problem?

[bsd]

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 01:14:19 UTC, WiseWords wrote:
> 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"

Well, that's a bit harsh. Can we close this thread?