On 4/19/2016 4:36 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 4/18/16 4:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>
>> I repeat, where was the insult in the post in question? What exactly
>> were the insulting words?
>
> I chose just one example:
>
>> Those who cannot write effective software without these "clever"
>> additions to the language are doing nothing but announcing to the
>> world that they are not clever enough to write effective software
>> using their own limited abilities.
>
> I think it's hard to avoid construing an implication that people
> proposing and/or supporting changes to how PHP handles type in the
> current discussions here are incompetent programmers.
>
> There's no doubt that this sentence posits a class of incompetent
> programmers who need crutches ('these "clever" additions') and a
> complementary class of competent programmer who don't. Saying so is
> pointless without some assignment (imaginary, implied or real) of
> individuals to the classes. It's hard to imagine that present company or
> the people whose interests we attempt to represent are not involved in
> the assignment. I find this a bit insulting.
>
> Insult is something experienced as well as something performed. If
> enough people experience it then probably it was performed, regardless
> of intent. So to this extent I just disagree that...
>
>> The fact that you don't like what I say does
>> not make it an insult.
>
> "It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"
>
>
> But we are now completely off topic. To bring us back on topic I repeat
> my request that you try to be specific about what you want and why, with
> respect to the RFCs under discussion.
>
> Tom
>
> Very well said! :) -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
