> No, the organisation of text by its very nature represents the state
> of mind (or minds) of its author(s). This is true for all
> communicative texts, including source code.
This assumes, among other things, an impartial reader and the ability
for the reader to understand the whole mind of the writer and make
accurate assumptions about it. Neither of which seems true in this case.
> Amen. So even on that score, calling me anal-retentive simply because
> you didn't see my point of view _immediately_ - does that still seem
> like a good idea to you? If you want a constructive debate, don't
> insult people.
Having pure music for the sake of "pure music" seems anal-retentive in
reference to the commonly used personality type descriptor. I honestly
did it to illustrate how narrow-viewed such a circular reasoning was
without further exposition on *why* you felt it needed to be disable-able.
> Right, you're able to do this now, under fire. If I had responded to
> you like that out-of-the-blue, it's a good bet you'd have been
> seriously offended.
You'd lose that bet.
> ... as you shoulda been - calling the idea 'moronic' very much
> suggests you're an idiot for thinking of it, and more importantly for
> not realising it as it was being discussed.
Ah, yes, only morons have moronic ideas. See, I assumed better of you -
I assumed you thought reasonably intelligent people could have bad ideas
from time to time, just as idiots can have good ones, and were simply
discussing the idea. Now I know that you're unable to separate the
intelligence level of a single idea from the person who has the idea, I
can better interpret some of the things you say.
> Of course the idea isn't moronic, your arrogance is. You're obviously
> not aware of it, take it on board.
I'll accept this at any point you can show me where I've said or
demonstrated through action that I consider my opinion more important
than those of others, or where I've said either I am superior or another
is inferior. Disagreeing with people alone does not make one arrogant.
> I've no idea what your responsibilities here are, and I don't care - I
> require respect in all my communications with people, and they get it
> from me as a matter of course.
Except when you go out of your way to insult people in response to their
honest and frank attempt to come to terms with you, of course, going so
far as to clear up something is intended as an insult when they gave you
the benefit of the doubt and thought you were trying to be reasonable?
> See, now there is the first decent paragraph - I have no problem with
> that at all. Shame that it took me being abusive, and several people
> complaining, before it happened.
The sad thing is, if people had read my text literally, they would've
understood that's what I wanted in the first place. The sad thing, here,
I think is that you think it took you being abusive to reach this when
what I explained there is what I've been saying all along. My opinion
hasn't changed, but you just said yours did. Shame that you gave up and
became abusive instead of taking a step back from your emotional
reactions and trying to read things without the assumptions you read
Received on 2009-06-20