1. Re: plans, ideas and RETT
Graeme,
I really hate replying to you on list, but since you blocked my
reply from the first time you directed a post towards me, I have
no choice.
>Ahem, I think these "boys" can speak for themselves.
>
>I don't think they need YOU to explain to us what YOU
>_think_ they are trying to say. Putting "maybe" on the
>front of a sentance dosn't change anything.
>
Actually, I thought the quote that I used allowed them to speak for
themselves, at least Mr. Getz.
>
>*** DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO CODE? ***
>
>Or Are You Just Here To Kid Yourself That Anyone Cares
>What Your Opinion Is?
>
>From what I have seen, you are a quite competent coder. Your
thinking and logical skills however seem limited to the narrow
confines of your own little private world. I have far more
coding experience than thee, and the quote that I used from
Mr. Getz very clearly expressed why I don't do but a little of
that coding in Euphoria.
>Exactly what does this mean, pray tell?
>
It means that I have made and kept a contract with Mr. Craig. I believe
that it was a foolish bargain on his part, but nevertheless a bargain.
The suggestion on Martin's part was that I had no right to the fruits of
an agreement made openly and without coercion. That impugns my honor and
that is something that I normally respond to strongly. Except for your
cowardly hit and run tactics, this post would be off the list.
>
>Then why have you just posted a large letter on the subject, also
>questioning Rob's integrity?
>
>Is this not EXACTLY what you have just done?
Most of the post had to do with issues on the list. Rob, as author of
the language, is part of the subject matter of this list. As author of
a piece of commercial shareware, he does not provide the type of
communication requisite to that type of product. Unlike yourself, most
of the major contributors on the list are, at least privately, aware
of that problem. Most of them have at one time or another gone public
on the list with some of their misgivings about Rob's handling of the
language. Nobody denies Rob's talent as an author, but his talents as
a communicator range between crusty and truculent.
>
>
>THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU ARE USING TO SATISFY SOME CHILDISH EGO-URGE
>IS HERE FOR ONE REASON ONLY:
>
>They are here becasue ROBERT CRAIG produced an EXCELLENT programming
>launguage. One that you continue use at the same time as you cast
>aspersions on his character.
Just because I am no fawning sycophant, salaaming at the feet of the
great author does not mean that I do not appreciate his art. I am
unaccustomed to glaciation as a speed comparison when responding to
changes in the world we program within.
>
>
>Clearly a supercilious idiot.
>
>Nobody has subscribed to ANY list to hear your drivel.
>Now do us all a favour and go tell somebody who gives a toss.
>
I have opinions and you have opinions. I am sure that you honestly
believe that what I write is drivel. Some of your posts I find to be
interesting and useful. Some, I find to be intemperate attacks on
others that disagree with you. In the future, more of the former and
less of the latter would make me happier, but I doubt that rates highly
in your world. Suffice it to say that since you choose to block private
email from anyone that disagrees with you, my replies will have to
remain public. The choice is yours.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
