Point(s) taken.
Yes I would like to thank not flame you if I had and address to send it to.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Maxwell" <dmaxwell at san.rr.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


> Re: Three Threads Of SqueakJustin --
>
> Nobody's garbaging anything, nobody's stalking you, nobody's trying to do
> anything malicious.
>
> Many of us simply find the topic not relevant enough to comment on, and
> maybe a few are interesting in exploring tangents from your original
topic,
> perhaps with the name of the thread unchanged.  Some folks have a rather
dry
> sense of humor, and a couple have people have been gently hinting that you
> tend to use very loaded language when discussing seemingly innocuous
issues.
> That's the nature of lists like this one.
>
> Perhaps some history might help. Quite frequently, somebody shows up on
the
> list that nobody's ever seen before and starts pontificating about what
"we"
> should do, why Squeak will never be accepted by the
industry/users/1337/etc
> and how Squeak is fundamentally flawed and we need to start over or
> something radical.  Typically various Big Names in totally unrelated
fields
> (typically philosophy) are invoked to support the thesis.  The typical
> response from the list, if any, is that the point is interesting, Squeak
is
> open source, and if anyone feels strongly enough, then they're welcome to
> fork the project and make something better.  It usually then turns out
that
> "we" doesn't include the person making all of the proposals.  After many
> years of this, you can probably see why your topic may not have gotten the
> attention it might deserve.
>
> The best way to get people to respect your views is to generate some
> "cred" - write some nifty code, fix some bugs, document something, or
> perhaps make a tutorial for new users.  That's the way to get people to
pay
> attention.
>
> This list has never before degenerated to the degree to invoke Godwin's
Law,
> and I sincerely hope it doesn't now, but frankly you have me a little
> worried.  There's no conspiracy to distract people, no "yahooligans", no
> Microsoftian disinformationists here.  And there's certainly nobody
"using"
> Alan Kay to suppress anything.
>
> If you wish to flame me over this, please do it directly and not clutter
the
> list with it.  Thanks.
>
> Cheers -
>
> -- Duane
>
>
>