On Feb 4, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Michael Haupt wrote:

> Hi Stéphane,
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM, stephane ducasse
> <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
>> On our kids wiki in 1998 we got really stupid and ugly picture  
>> posted and I
>> never understood
>> so we just blocked the pages (but there were not smalltalkers I  
>> imagine).
>
> please clarify: do you really believe that a person using Smalltalk is
> "good" (in the pure ethical sense) by default? Your comments suggest
> this, I'd just like to know.

I don't see why this is such a stretch.  Certainly, the generalization  
won't always be true... I'm sure that there exist Smalltalkers who get  
their kicks from crass vandalism, and we probably have more than our  
share of evil geniuses hatching schemes to extort beeellions of Euros  
(hi Tim!).  However, it seems to me that Smalltalkers are more  
motivated by Truth and Beauty than the average programmer (they're  
certainly not in it for the most plentiful jobs or the biggest  
money!).  If this is true, it follows that they're less likely to  
engage in Ugly Ugly website vandalism.  I'm sure that Stephane doesn't  
mean to imply that Smalltalkers are perfect, infallible beings.

Cheers,
Josh


>
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>