in reply to Re^9: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long
in thread Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long

No, I'm dismissing your strategy -- taking your ball and going home, and then a year later making vague assertions about the state of a project you admittedly haven't followed for a year, then backing up your claims with "I have facts, but I'm not going to present them unless you ask nicely in private."

You can have whatever opinion you want. I just think it's really unfair to spread FUD in public and refuse to provide details -- especially in an old thread where people actually doing work on the project don't often look.

I mean, what can anyone involved in Parrot right now possibly say to counter your claims? "No, those things you think but won't say aren't possibly true or don't matter, for these reasons I'm thinking but not saying?"

What possible good does spreading your opinion do? There are billions of people who just don't care about Parrot, and we work on it anyway. I'm sure there are thousands of people who don't belive it'll ever work, and we work on it anyway. Then you come along and claim to have some brilliant knowledge about why, but you won't tell anyone, and that's just fairly useless.

That's all. Flame away. I don't care.

  • Comment on Re^10: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 22, 2006 at 19:15 UTC

    Oh dear! Please, please. Go back and look at the date on that post.

    I didn't "spread FUD" ... "in an old thread". The comments I made were made at the time that thread was posted. Within 5 hours of the post containing similar comments by another monk which it posted in agreement with and support of. And within 12 hours of the root node of the thread. It was arunbear's post which resurrected that 10-month old thread. But you couldn't be bothered to notice that.

    I didn't know who arunbear is, or what his motivation for resurrecting that old thread might be, but I knew I was no longer in touch with things Parrot, having not followed it since Dan left. All I did know was that the immediately previous post I had read, which I had thought about considering as spam, had been frontpaged by him. Which made me suspicious of his motives, so I declined to comment, giving my explanations for why I was doing so. But you couldn't be bothered to read them.

    That could, and should have been an end to it, but then you wade in throwing insults & unfounded accusations--which you have continued to throw in every post.

    ... and refuse to provide details.

    Your posts remind of the lost tourist that stops and asks a local. "Oi shithead. You couldn't possibly know the way to my destination."

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      Go back and look at the date on that post.

      I actually meant the one posted yesterday, but we're not doing anyone any favors by continuing to discuss this. I apologize for jumping on you about it. It's clear we disagree, and I won't bring it up again.

      Update: Clarified.

[reply]

In Section Meditations