Re: Undermining the Perl Language
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:49:51AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > Please take your paranoia elsewhere. I think if you actually sat down > and had lunch with each of the parties involved, and those further out > but well-informed, you'd find a consistent view of reality that > doesn't match ANY of your delusions. Worked for me! -- "He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable."
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:57:33 -0400, Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >David, please take your conspiracies elsewhere. We've all heard >them before and they are not germane to the Perl6 brainstorming >process we find ourselves in right now. Comrade Adam, your behavior is in violation of directive RFC23B of the Perl-Cabal [Request For Constraint: Don't feed the troll (in public)]. The current operation (feeding misinformation through the fake leak in access node 23) is working well. The trolls own gullibility lets him repeat even the most outrageous nonsense in public, thereby continuing to destroy its own credibility forever (as far as there is any left). Please also be advised that your covert status has been compromised. Public display of [EMAIL PROTECTED] and even [EMAIL PROTECTED] have been registered by our monitors. These addresses can be traced back to [EMAIL PROTECTED], even by resources less powerful than the Cabals own. You are from now on forbidden to take further action in this operation. Please return to your local command center for debriefing and reprogramming. Additional operators have been dispatched to the site to perform a CTR for risk assessment and potential damage containment. There is no need for concern on your side. Fnord! -- B R O T H E R S I N A R M S P R O G R A M M I R O V A N I ED L I A N A R O D A
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
Stephen Zander wrote: > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded > David> on committee action, but on rebellion. > > I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a > rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based in support of their > arguments is not lost on other non-US members of this list. Not to mention the ironies in that the rebellion was fomented, in large part, by committees, and that our supreme ruling document was drafted and approved by committees -- NOT by an autocrat, and NOT by the at-large populace. -- John Porter
RE: Undermining the Perl Language
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Stephen Zander wrote: > > > "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded > > David> on committee action, but on rebellion. > > > I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a > > rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based in support of their > > arguments is not lost on other non-US members of this list. > > Indeed, it isn't lost on some USA members either. :) > Are we talking about Chinese tea "commoddities" again?
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
Stephen Zander wrote: > > "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded > David> on committee action, but on rebellion. > I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a > rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based in support of their > arguments is not lost on other non-US members of this list. Indeed, it isn't lost on some USA members either. :) -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn PGP signature
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
> "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded David> on committee action, but on rebellion. I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based in support of their arguments is not lost on other non-US members of this list. -- Stephen "And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:24:12 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: >FWIW, I agree entirely with Randal here. How do you prove that you're not paranoid, that "they" are really after you? How do you prove that putting aluminum foil on your head really helps? You can't. That said, I can only say one thing: if you can't trust in software originating from the Open Source movement, you can't trust anything. It's like calling GreenPeace "sell-outs". -- Bart.
RE: Undermining the Perl Language
> It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs, > in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the > cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work > with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two up the > ladder, such as it is--Kirrily's a sane and sensible person to deal with > for any of the -language sub-groups, and if she's not, then Nat *certainly* > is. And complaints about me can always go to him too. Nobody's picking on you, Dan. > Honestly it looks like a good part of the problem we're having is that > people are treating things that aren't particularly important to be far > more important than they really are. I don't feel that this is appropriate or accurate. The emminent takeover of the perl language is _not_ a trivial matter. It is not a scare tactic to use this language, since all of the proof is in the public domain and available by simple deduction. The inappropriate action is not to act, and the inappropriate verbage and misinformation is that there is either not a problem or that nothing can be done about it. If someone else were willing to take the soapbox with different words but a similar result, the result of the protection of our language from monopolists, and positive action to move towards more positive advocacy for perl's benefit, I would be happy to step off and keep my mouth shut. This thread has been moved and re-Subjected. Please respect the listmaster's wishes and keep it in here.
RE: Undermining the Perl Language
> No conspiracy could be that well-oiled. Someone would have leaked it > by now. The community has been leaking like a sieve since July 1998. Want a complete list?
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:14:49PM -0500, David Grove wrote: > [...] I've no idea why Sarathy was deposed, He wasn't. > but I have a > pretty big suspicion. And a pretty big, well known problem with ActiveState. > The problem is, I love Sarathy too. He's a hero, Yes, he's pretty heroic. > now with > a tarnished reputation, You think his reputation is tarnished, because that forwards your anti-ActiveState beliefs. I daresay that you are the only one with such a belief, or such reason for that belief. > not necessarily solely because but definitely partially > because, of a poor choice in employers. "Definitely partially"? Logically, if his reputation isn't tarnished, then he didn't choose employers poorly. David, please take your conspiracies elsewhere. We've all heard them before and they are not germane to the Perl6 brainstorming process we find ourselves in right now. Z.
Re: Undermining the Perl Language
> Something's gotta budge. I do not want to pay for the privilege of using a > free > language, and the "elite" need a damn good spaking to learn some manners to > newbies (for at least the sake of advocacy) and people who don't use their > own > OS/Computer/Platform. Being a Perl community newbie myself, I'd like to comment that I felt quite welcomed and encouraged. I found my bad ideas politely put down and my good ideas accepted and improved (or "embraced and extended," if you prefer putting a negative anti-Microsoft slant on it). > At what point in Perl5's history did it become politically (socially) > incorrect > to dislike Microsoft, and attempt to steer away from them and their allies, > and > other companies who use similar tactics to Microsoft's to take over? Boy, you got me. I don't think it's happened, yet. But it does seem to be politically incorrect to like Microsoft. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. > I > think > that the P6 version of the P5P should be matched with a body to govern the > politics of the language, whose members are elected and whose members may > not > be employees of known or confessed monopolists (or, more realistically, > have no > profit motive). That's so subjective, though. Nobody really has a software monopoly, and everyone with a business certainly wants to be number one. How do you tell which companies are monoplists? Or, to put it another way, when you say "known or confessed monopolists," who is doing the knowing? If you want to avoid profit motive entirely, you're out of luck. It's just not going to happen. I keep hearing all this complaining about the "self-appointed" leaders, but there aren't any. The people I regard as leaders are appointed by us, that is, I trust them enough to respect their decisions because of their past record of achievement. jdb
