Hey Goran,

the two of us recently have thrown some "nonsense" words at each other and  
I was *not* under the impression that you where getting tired just because  
we did so :)

O.K. you should (also) be doing other things but that is no excuse!  
Everybody else here should (also) be doing other things.

And if you're concerned that hardly any (major) change can be proposed  
without having tons of arguments raised against it, then you're perhaps  
suffering from the image based development of Squeak and other Smalltalks.  
Imagine how easy it would be if you'd just have to change a handful of  
"import" imperatives ;-)

Come back into the discussion, please. Your opinion is valuable here in  
squeak-dev.

/Klaus

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:43:37 +0100, <goran at krampe.se> wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Rollandin?= <lecteur at zogotounga.net> wrote:
>> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here.
>>    why destroy Squeak ?
>
> Ok, I have for various reasons decided to drop out of this discussion.
>
> I don't think I will be able to make my arguments and views any more
> clear than the "nonsense" I have produced so far, and since I seem to be
> the only one publically supporting Juan (perhaps there were a few more)
> I am clearly outnumbered. And I don't feel encouraged to keep discussing
> it this particular way, no - I don't know why we should destroy Squeak
> btw.
>
> And I should be doing other things anyway. ;)
>
> The rest of squeak-dev will simply have to (and the board IMHO) figure
> this one out.
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. I am kinda tired of the fact that hardly any change can be proposed
> in this community without having tons of arguments raised against it.
> Sure, this particular case is harder to judge - but the fact remains,
> how can we keep all the Juans out there interested if they only meet
> resistance when offering their time and energy? Sure, the medicine does
> not taste good - dumping eToys hurts, I know that. But this problem is
> generic. And no, don't bother replying to me specifically about this
> because I don't have the energy to discuss anything right now.
>
>