Hi Klaus!

(this thread is really beaten to death, but whatever - let's beat it
some more!)

For the rest - this is a meta-post. We just blabber on about ourselves
misunderstanding each other in order to get as far away from the subject
as possible! :) :) (a joke)

"Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> >> I have not seen any heat in this thread. I was just asking my questions
> >> (instead of misunderstanding other people's questions and answers) and
> >> indeed got the information that enlighted me (and others?).
> >
> > Well, AFAIK you came onto me quite hard asking if I had indeed read what
> > Pavel wrote etc
> 
> I asked this silly one because it seemed to me that Pavel wrote at the  
> time between: (your message to me) and: (my response to you). This was not  
> meant hard, just a "have you seen it".
> 
> > and even using capital letters
> 
> ... for which I excused me in advance. No need to stress this again.

Fine, just pointing out what I meant with "heat".

>   - when in fact you are
> > the one that got it wrong.
> 
> This was nothing about me getting something right or wrong. I started this  
> thread in order to understand.

Fine, then please don't accuse me of "questioning" Pavel's work or
"discouraging" it or whatever, because I have done no such thing. Ever.
On the contrary.

> Please point me to what I got wrong in
> 
> -  
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110648.html

AFAICT you got nothing "wrong" there - even though I don't agree with
you. :) (another story)

> and/or what I got wrong in
> 
> -  
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110707.html

Nothing wrong - it just contains questions AFAICT.

> > Which is fine of course - we all make
> > mistakes,
> 
> How can I be wrong by asking questions? I do not tolerate you blame me  
> "making mistakes" when I post questions.

I was referring to this post:

	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110
685.html

In which I think you "got it wrong" about what Pavel has and has not
done etc.

> > but why pushing it so hard?
> 
> It is perhaps so that you and I got confused (somehow) on utility of  
> Pavel's work.
> 
> > For example you write "So how come
> > you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it.
> 
> O.K. I respect what you write here in response to my question. Thank you.

Your question states that I do indeed question something, which I don't.
Ok?

> > It is just not
> > relevant in this discussion (for the readers not following this in
> > detail: since Pavel indeed has not separated eToys from Morphic, which
> > is the subject at hand).
> 
> Well, I read the sentence with the "relevance" word as: you're reflecting  
> on yourself. No comment, could possibly cause confusion.

I don't follow, but it doesn't matter I guess.

> > Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok,
> > fine.
> 
> That's quite possible. And it's also possible that I misunderstood your  
> remarks on Pavel's good work.
> 
> I want to point out that [part of] my intention was to understand why  
> Pavel's good work would not be relevant, and this question *is* subject in  
> this thread.

Sure, but why didn't you just ASK that then instead of rambling about me
questioning it and a conspiracy and what not?

> >> > And what
> >> > "conspiracy" are you talking about?
> >>
> >> Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like
> >> you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and  
> >> (ab-)using
> >> your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What
> >> would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you
> >> understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this
> >> thread.
> >
> > Sigh. I am *not* discouraging the work of Pavel - I am actually very
> > impressed! And btw, I have been advocating Pavel's work in other
> > contexts etc,
> 
> Great! Will value your words by the actions that will be seen in the  
> future - no offense intended!

Likewise. Even though I have no idea why you have any reason to doubt my
word.

> > so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy"
> > against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)
> 
> O.K. I respect your doubts. (BTW and OT: a "conspiracy" is not a  
> conspiracy.)

Lost you.

> > But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between
> > Morphic and eToys.
> 
> This was not so at the beginning of this thread (and so perhaps caused  
> some confusion, between you and me). I agree that *separation* is [part  
> of] the outcome of this thread.

Ehm, well, you started this particular subject (I think) - but you
referred to the *ongoing debate* which was AFAIK started by Juan in this
post:

	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110
359.html

So I was pretty convinced that *this* is what we are talking about. And
since I felt people were talking in circles I took the liberty of
clarifying the subject in this post:

	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110
678.html

Which Pavel also verified later (that he has not separated eToys from
Morphic).

> > Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable -
> > but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.
> 
> I disagree, since I asked for the whatabouts of this story. This is  
> perhaps why you felt I was asking so hard (you and me had different  
> stories). For your convenience, I repeat from my very first message:
> 
> quote "I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent of removing Etoys, Morphic,  
> etc. Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about ..." unquote.

And I repeat from your first message (which definitely was not the first
in the *debate*):

"Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about (myth?
conspiracy?  who in squeak-dev knows ;-)"

And thus I tried explaining to you (and others) *what this debate* is
about indeed.

> >> > PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many
> >> > Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools
> >> > flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap  
> >> in
> >> > order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for  
> >> other
> >> > things than making eToys.
> >>
> >> But not for every application. So flaps are an option at best and when
> >> making things unloadable/reloadable I'd vote for flaps becoming an
> >> optional package.
> >
> > I agree in theory, but as for the actual practicality I leave that to
> > Juan.
> 
> O.K. let Juan the maker decide what he puts his hands on.

Right - doers decide, and he just posted with a very good list IMHO. I
agree with it 100%, again. :)

> > When arguing for flaps I was more thinking along the lines of what kind
> > of Morphic experience we would like to have in the "default" dev image -
> > and I can imagine we want flaps to be in there.
> 
> Sure, me too can imagine that the developers want to use flaps.
> 
> > But I agree - if it can
> > be made a loadable package I am all with ya.
> 
> Now *this* was [part of] what this thread was about :)

Flaps? Then I am totally lost. ;)

> /Klaus

I really think we got it off in a strange way here - I have no idea why.
I really just want the best from all of us, I really don't question
anyones work, I really don't think there is any conspiracy going on, and
I really am just one of us.

regards, Göran