Ken, It's always easy to complain and you seem excellent at it. However, to investigate any problem, hard facts are needed to support the fixing process.
There are little facts reported in your emails about the problems you experienced according to you regarding ccw. Not reading wiki pages available, not investigating available links about ccw are more a sign of mental laziness than anything else or some form of disdain. It's clear that you are not familiar with Eclipse and this is a sinequanone condition to use an IDE. Either read Eclipse documentation or develop knowledge to extensive use before ranting about it. Whatever is efficient for you. If these mundane activities are not important to you then maybe you should balance your post contents a bit and change the ranting/facts ratio. You cannot hold others responsible for your lack of knowledge in some areas. I see the same pattern with your ranting against the numeric optimizations in 1.3. All of these discussions are available in the google group mailing list but it seems you did not read them to fully understand the pros and cons of each approach that where evaluated. Too bad you joined the group after these decisions where made. It's up to you to live with it and catch up. That's your problem, not ours. You have been asked kindly to change your tone. Lucky for you, I do not use white gloves most of the time so you get my appreciation of your contribution straight here. As nice as some of your previous posts: It's easy to write things like you do when you do not have any face to face contact with the recipients of your diatribes. I'm big, mean and I hate prima donnas. You would not even try to use that tone with a guy like me. You did not even rant at me and I cannot stand your posts anymore. You should change career, maybe the Hollywood star system would be an alternative. To prevent myself from throwing-up daily, I added a rule to my email client so emails having your name in it ends up in the junk folder. I regularly empty it without reading its content. I invite others that find your tone inconvenient to do the same. You can still rant in the desert, at least I will not spend anymore time reading your unconstructive complaints. Have a nice day, Luc P. On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:49:35 -0500 Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Laurent PETIT > <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2011/1/18 Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chas Emerick > >> <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > >> > Any tone you might have picked up from Laurent might be a > >> > reaction to your ranting about how ccw is apparently rubbish > >> > rather than asking for help. > >> > >> Well, excuuuuse me for assuming, > > > > Another day, less tired than today, another attempt. > > ? > > > [OT] > > Ken, out of topic question: are you aware of the impact of the way > > you "write things" ? > > ? > > > It's quite strange how you avoid the topic when people directly > > mention it. > > ? > > > And it's also strange how at the same time, you reinforce the > > problem by using a writing style with emphasis on "complaining", > > "ranting", etc. : the 4 "u" in "excuuuuse me" being a good example > > of what I'm trying to explain. > > Chas Emerick's post criticized me. I defended myself. The part of his > criticism that was unreasonable was the foundational assumption that I > had recognized CCW as malfunctioning rather than what actually > occurred, which was that as far as I was aware it was working properly > but simply lacking some features. > > I don't think it was unreasonable for me to be a bit sarcastic in > pointing this out, since the original post makes it clear that I > interpreted what I saw as not-yet-implemented features rather than as > bugs. > > Indeed, that original post was in no way deserving of criticism and > yet I've received nothing else since posting it. First from you with > your implication that I was remiss in not having read some "install > guide" that does not turn up at any point along the path to getting it > installed, and now from several people about my "writing style". > > I respectfully suggest that if you don't like the slightly acerbic > style with which I respond in my own defense when unfairly criticized, > then perhaps you should simply avoid criticizing me. > > > Ken, the "raw content" of your feedback report on installing and > > trying Counterclockwise has been noted, and I certainly intend to > > pick ideas in it for future releases of CCW. > > You are involved in its development? > > (If so, it's even more mystifying that you asked me to submit a ticket > on the problems I observed -- you would already have all the logins > and access you need to do so AND far more familiarity with the > tracker, so by the time I even got to your reply the ticket could have > already existed. And if the development team knew about these problems > before I encountered them, and even wrote some (lamentably not easily > stumbled-upon) documentation regarding work-arounds, shouldn't such a > ticket have *already* existed?) > > > In the mean time, there's a question you did not explicitly answer > > to: was there an implicit question in your email, beyond its > > "informative" nature ? > > No. Just statements of observed fact about CCW. > > > Last question: would it be possible for you to try write your posts > > in a less emotional/sarcastic/condescendent way ? > > I only replied in kind. The first snark was from you, if you'll > recall: > > > I have good news for you: ccw documentation is linked from the main > > page of the counterclockwise project, in the "Quick links" section, > > and it's neither a pdf neither a video, plain old wiki page > > This is clearly not only sarcastic but an implied criticism that I > should have already seen and read this, even though nowhere is any of > it linked to during the process of getting and installing CCW. > > > Because it's really counter productive and does not serve well > > neither the point you're trying to make, neither the feelings of > > the recipient(s) of your mail. > > That applies double to whoever throws the first snark. Nobody should > be surprised or especially dismayed if, after someone does so, their > target responds in kind. > -- Luc P. ================ The rabid Muppet -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
