"Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> From: <goran.krampe at bluefish.se>
> > "Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> > > From: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
> > > [snip]
> > > > > You are correct, I don't need to lecture you on how Smalltalk works.
> It
> > > also
> > > > > goes without saying that since you have been 'making it
> professionally
> > > for
> > > > > twenty years', your judgments about it are much more valuable than
> > > whatever
> > > > > opinion I might have about it.
> > > > Excessive humility is at least as big a sin as excessive pride. Say
> > > > three Hail Alans and write out the morphic hierarchy 100 times in
> > > > expiation.
> > >
> > > Tim, I have no problem with you, or anyone else, displaying arrogance.
> In
> > > fact, in most instances, I will enjoy it.
> > >
> > > At the same time, there is a line between arrogance and verbal abuse.
> You
> > > have crossed that line in one big step.
> 
> Goran,
> 
> > Peter - I am pretty sure Tim was joking for most part here.
> 
> It is of little consequence. I want to get this bug in Squeaks shared
> variable binding fixed. Tim can joke about it all he likes, I don't mind. I
> am squarely opposed, however, to not fixing a major bug because Tim has
> never been bothered by the bug.

Eh... now I think things are getting mixed up. I think I was the one
talking about "not been bothered" by the bug. And that was only
regarding doing a new release of 3.6. As I understand it Tim has never
been opposed to fix the bug (or has he?).

> > I thought it
> > was pretty funny to read. And you *did* sound pretty ironic (the
> > sentence beginning with "You are correct, ...")
> 
> That sentence was not ironic. I meant it when I said I don't need to lecture
> Tim on how Smalltalk works. In both possible meanings: he does not require
> instruction from me, nor do I have a compulsion to instruct him.
> 
> The second sentence *was* ironic. Of course I didn't really mean it when I
> said his 20 years of doing Smalltalk automatically makes his opinions more
> valuable than mine.

Eh, sorry, that was the sentence I was referring to.
 
> Do I really need to explain this?

No, of course not. I was simply reacting on your rather strong words
trying to get you guys to cool down. This list is a friendly list and we
try hard to keep it that way.
 
> > so a little "punchback"
> > was just to be expected IMHO.
> 
> Had he "punched back" by giving real arguments instead of quoting his many
> years of experience and his fear of being confused by a correctly working
> facility that he doesn't see as useful anyway and would not want to use, I
> would have appreciated the "punchback".

I was referring the the "Hail Alans" etc, not anything else. And again
you are assuming that Squeak is meant to be nothing more than a
"Smalltalk". I have posted on that issue. What I mean is that "correctly
working" is clearly up for debate.

> > Come on now guys, shake hands and let us continue. :-)
> 
> If you want to continue, I suggest you test the fix and post your findings.

I have no idea what you are implying by this last sentence. AFAICT there
is an ongoing discussion and I am following it. And the day has not come
yet when people can simply tell me what to do unless they pay me.

regards, Göran