It is my sad duty to report here that some of the core clojure
maintainers, and the clojure Google Group, are experiencing ...
difficulties. These difficulties appear to originate from human
foibles, rather than from technical problems.
Particularly, Rich Hickey (yes, that is apparently his name) appears
to have become censorious and dictatorial, unwilling to abide
disagreement, even polite and reasoned disagreement, and quite willing
to attempt to forcibly muzzle critics.
The following nonabusive post was attempted three times, at widely
separated intervals, in response to what I felt was an unwarranted
personal attack. No rational person can consider this to be spam,
abuse, or in any way off-charter, surely. Yet all three times it
failed to appear, even as other posts were made to the group, and even
to the particular thread at issue. All reasonable doubt that this is
censorship rather than a glitch has been removed.
> On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Rich Hickey <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 5:45 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
>> > Well *something* was certainly missing, or I would have found it. You
>> > can't reasonably claim I was lax in my search efforts in this
>> > instance.
>>
>> reduce/foldl is called some variant of either reduce or fold in the
>> majority of languages in which it appears:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function)
>>
>> Anyone who is going to make claims about it being one of the basics of
>> functional programming should know that.
> I guess the functional languages I've used previously happen to be in
> that minority that don't call it reduce, then.
>> reduce is also mentioned twice in the very short page on sequences:
>>
>> http://clojure.org/sequences
> Yes:
>> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
>> into-array to-array-2d
>> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
>> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> "seq" even once.
> This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
>> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> I disagree.
>> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> you agree?
I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
right of reply denied to its target.
The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
superior wisdom.
Whereas Rich, as group manager, technically has the right to behave in
this rather uncivilized fashion, it is also the case that I, and
others, have the right to note and report upon the facts of this case,
and more generally upon the behavior and nature of the clojure Google
Group. It is clear that a person posting there in a good faith effort
to be helpful and preferring self-help to whining and demanding hand-
holding can expect a rather chilly reception there based on the
evidence of some of the recent threads posted there. Much worse even
than that, if she shows any inclination towards treating others as
equals and expecting civilized treatment rather than rolling over and
meekly tolerating whatever abuse and derision is heaped her way, she
can expect her posts to mysteriously disappear. Rich apparently has a
very strong preference for having the last word, and is quite willing
to employ his unfair advantage as group manager to get it, instead of
carrying out the duties of that office fairly and impartially while
remaining above any fray of personal altercations that might arise.
I reiterate that this is within Rich's rights. As it is within our
rights to make public note of these facts, and also within our rights
to decide to shop around for our clojure-related discussion needs if
we decide we'd prefer to be treated differently.
If anyone knows of a place for discussing clojure (possibly here; it
is a Lisp after all) that provides a better reception for people who
are uninterested in personal power politics and would rather just get
to the business of coding and, earnestly and in good faith, sharing
their knowledge and useful code snippets with others, then by all
means, please do point the way. Thank you. (An unmoderated Usenet
newsgroup would be best; there, any attempts at censorship would
require spoofing cancels, an action contrary to most NSPs' terms of
service. Censorship there would consequently be more susceptible to
effective reprisals.)
Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
A second censored post, as innocuous as the first and not even
directly challenging Rich, follows:
> On Jun 17, 6:34 pm, Max Suica <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wrexsoul, please mate, these are good guys. Remember the beauty and
>> tradition of the language you're learning. It's a lisp and gives you
>> the power to effortlessly create almost any abstraction you can
>> imagine. Not being convinced of the beauty of this, open you mind a
>> bit and humble yourself some in order to feel that wonder. Otherwise
>> you'll just feel you're using a fairly new and immature language that
>> just doesn't have much traction in the real world yet and hits your
>> with inconveniences here and there which you wouldn't have to deal
>> with in other places. But then you miss the feeling of getting to work
>> with a system that'll create what you imagine, and that's important to
>> feel whatever you're using. You possibly didn't feel that way in your
>> other language, even if it had nice enterprise level documentation.
>> Even if you just want to be more productive, this feeling of freedom
>> of expression is key. I've personally felt it here and in haskell and
>> not anywhere else.
>>
>> Sure clojure is still new and immature. I've felt your feeling of
>> incompleteness. But guess what, that feeling gives you an excuse. And
>> excuse to read core code. An excuse to implement things that belong
>> here and know that you've created something good. Really, a reason to
>> learn and say "what brand new thing can I do in clojure today?"
>>
>> Every day.
>
> And that is precisely what I've been doing. It's just that when I
> implement something and then post it here, the results I mostly get
> are not very appreciative. I guess quite a few people here don't feel
> as we apparently do.
The Google Group at issue is located here: http://groups.google.com/group/clojure
Generic flames of Google-Groups-in-general will not be constructive
responses, so please send those to /dev/null.
Thank you for your time and attention.
On Jun 18, 4:20 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> It is my sad duty to report here that some of the core clojure
> maintainers, and the clojure Google Group, are experiencing ...
> difficulties. These difficulties appear to originate from human
> foibles, rather than from technical problems.
>
> Particularly, Rich Hickey (yes, that is apparently his name) appears
> to have become censorious and dictatorial, unwilling to abide
> disagreement, even polite and reasoned disagreement, and quite willing
> to attempt to forcibly muzzle critics.
>
> The following nonabusive post was attempted three times, at widely
> separated intervals, in response to what I felt was an unwarranted
> personal attack. No rational person can consider this to be spam,
> abuse, or in any way off-charter, surely. Yet all three times it
> failed to appear, even as other posts were made to the group, and even
> to the particular thread at issue. All reasonable doubt that this is
> censorship rather than a glitch has been removed.
>
So, your post fails to post 3 times, and you decide that Rich Hickey
is a crazy dictator? Ever hear of a network outage? I have had posts
get lost and show up on Usenet days later.
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Rich Hickey <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 5:45 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> >> > Well *something* was certainly missing, or I would have found it. You
> >> > can't reasonably claim I was lax in my search efforts in this
> >> > instance.
>
> >> reduce/foldl is called some variant of either reduce or fold in the
> >> majority of languages in which it appears:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function)
>
> >> Anyone who is going to make claims about it being one of the basics of
> >> functional programming should know that.
> > I guess the functional languages I've used previously happen to be in
> > that minority that don't call it reduce, then.
> >> reduce is also mentioned twice in the very short page on sequences:
>
> >>http://clojure.org/sequences
> > Yes:
> >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> >> into-array to-array-2d
> >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > "seq" even once.
> > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > I disagree.
> >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > you agree?
You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
functions that operate on sequences.
...
>
> I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> right of reply denied to its target.
>
I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
> The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> superior wisdom.
>
Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
group.
Seems reasonable enough to me.
> Whereas Rich, as group manager, technically has the right to behave in
> this rather uncivilized fashion, it is also the case that I, and
> others, have the right to note and report upon the facts of this case,
> and more generally upon the behavior and nature of the clojure Google
> Group. It is clear that a person posting there in a good faith effort
> to be helpful and preferring self-help to whining and demanding hand-
> holding can expect a rather chilly reception there based on the
> evidence of some of the recent threads posted there. Much worse even
> than that, if she shows any inclination towards treating others as
> equals and expecting civilized treatment rather than rolling over and
> meekly tolerating whatever abuse and derision is heaped her way, she
> can expect her posts to mysteriously disappear. Rich apparently has a
> very strong preference for having the last word, and is quite willing
> to employ his unfair advantage as group manager to get it, instead of
> carrying out the duties of that office fairly and impartially while
> remaining above any fray of personal altercations that might arise.
>
> I reiterate that this is within Rich's rights. As it is within our
> rights to make public note of these facts, and also within our rights
> to decide to shop around for our clojure-related discussion needs if
> we decide we'd prefer to be treated differently.
>
> If anyone knows of a place for discussing clojure (possibly here; it
> is a Lisp after all) that provides a better reception for people who
> are uninterested in personal power politics and would rather just get
> to the business of coding and, earnestly and in good faith, sharing
> their knowledge and useful code snippets with others, then by all
> means, please do point the way. Thank you. (An unmoderated Usenet
> newsgroup would be best; there, any attempts at censorship would
> require spoofing cancels, an action contrary to most NSPs' terms of
> service. Censorship there would consequently be more susceptible to
> effective reprisals.)
>
> Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
moderators here.
> A second censored post, as innocuous as the first and not even
> directly challenging Rich, follows:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 6:34 pm, Max Suica <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Wrexsoul, please mate, these are good guys. Remember the beauty and
> >> tradition of the language you're learning. It's a lisp and gives you
> >> the power to effortlessly create almost any abstraction you can
> >> imagine. Not being convinced of the beauty of this, open you mind a
> >> bit and humble yourself some in order to feel that wonder. Otherwise
> >> you'll just feel you're using a fairly new and immature language that
> >> just doesn't have much traction in the real world yet and hits your
> >> with inconveniences here and there which you wouldn't have to deal
> >> with in other places. But then you miss the feeling of getting to work
> >> with a system that'll create what you imagine, and that's important to
> >> feel whatever you're using. You possibly didn't feel that way in your
> >> other language, even if it had nice enterprise level documentation.
> >> Even if you just want to be more productive, this feeling of freedom
> >> of expression is key. I've personally felt it here and in haskell and
> >> not anywhere else.
>
> >> Sure clojure is still new and immature. I've felt your feeling of
> >> incompleteness. But guess what, that feeling gives you an excuse. And
> >> excuse to read core code. An excuse to implement things that belong
> >> here and know that you've created something good. Really, a reason to
> >> learn and say "what brand new thing can I do in clojure today?"
>
> >> Every day.
>
> > And that is precisely what I've been doing. It's just that when I
> > implement something and then post it here, the results I mostly get
> > are not very appreciative. I guess quite a few people here don't feel
> > as we apparently do.
>
> The Google Group at issue is located here:http://groups.google.com/group/clojure
>
> Generic flames of Google-Groups-in-general will not be constructive
> responses, so please send those to /dev/null.
>
> Thank you for your time and attention.
Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
On Jun 18, 5:25 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, your post fails to post 3 times, and you decide that Rich Hickey
> is a crazy dictator? Ever hear of a network outage? I have had posts
> get lost and show up on Usenet days later.
It wasn't a Usenet post. It was a Google Groups post, which Google's
server explicitly said was "successful", and traffic in the group was
otherwise normal for that period.
If you post to a webboard (not usenet) and your posts, and ONLY your
posts, fail to show up, you don't suspect an outage. Particularly not
if you retry after six hours, then again after another twelve, with
consistent results.
> > >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> > >> into-array to-array-2d
> > >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> > >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > > "seq" even once.
> > > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> > >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > > I disagree.
> > >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > > you agree?
>
> You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
> functions that operate on sequences.
Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
before concluding that functionality is absent.
> > I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> > abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> > prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> > lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> > right of reply denied to its target.
>
> I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
> such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
I did not.
> > The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> > that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> > superior wisdom.
>
> Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
> group.
If that is so, then it still indicates poor behavior on Rich's part:
he raised the topic and did not censor his own post. Two other people
posted blatant personal attacks, ruder than Rich's, for which he
rebuked them, but he did not censor their posts. I posted a calm
rebuttal on the same topic, far more civil than those other two and at
least as civil as Rich's, and he does censor it. That's quite the
double standard.
(I note that you are no longer claiming the post disappearances were
"network outages" and are now more or less admitting that they were in
fact acts of censorship.)
Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
topic and non-abusive.
Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
kind.
> Seems reasonable enough to me.
I disagree.
> > Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> > c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> > clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> > an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
> No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
> moderators here.
I have no interest in being an idiot. I do have an interest in
justice, and in warning the public about the chilly reception people
receive in a particular Google Group.
> > Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
I have no such personal crusade. I posted merely to thwart, to the
extent possible, the censorship and to warn a potentially unsuspecting
public.
> I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
Perhaps you'd also be satisfied if he allocated that fraction of his
time, apparently considerably in excess of zero, currently budgeted
for slamming people unreasonably and for post-censoring to code-
writing instead?
I know I would.
Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
Or maybe he can *really* man up, and apologize for the whole affair.
It still astonishes me that what seems to have been an honest
misunderstanding has blown up into this, with successive escalations
by Rich and what's beginning to look like an actual honest-to-God goon
squad.
Escalations with mystifying lack of apparent motive.
To recap:
I post saying I didn't find X which I'd expected would be there,
detailing the steps of my thorough search, and I even helpfully
include actual (working, tested) code to implement X, plus example
code (also tested and working) using it.
Response: derision, name-calling, abuse.
I post honestly baffled at the responses I got, reiterating in even
more detail the search I had performed and politely pointing out that
the responses a) were personal attacks and b) were not appreciated. I
take care not to lose my cool, and to respond calmly and rationally.
Response: Rich rebukes the two goons that posted the most egregious
flames, and they apologize.
At this point, it looks like a simple ordinary misunderstanding of
some sort, resolved quickly by a mod putting his foot down in an
appropriate manner. Perhaps those two had had bad days, or simply were
themselves trolls (as one of them accused me of being).
But...
A short time later, Rich abruptly turns right around and flames me as
well, accusing me vaguely of acting in bad faith, without being very
specific as to the nature of the putative bad faith, aside from
supposedly not searching the documents hard enough.
Unbelieving, I reply, again calmly and rationally, to explain exactly
how thorough my search actually was and to note that I'd noticed a
general undercurrent of hostility there from the moment I'd arrived,
one for which there was no obvious explanation.
The result was basically just a reiteration of the same accusation of
lacking thoroughness.
I respond pointing out that the only possible more-thorough search I
could have performed would have been to *read* the *entire* api page
from top to bottom rather than grepping it. (It is 60 pages long, at
50 lines per page, and weighs in at approximately 200KB.)
He deletes the response.
Repeat a few times, and then here we are.
Point to one single action of mine in the above sequence that wasn't,
if anything, better than how you would have reacted had the same thing
happened to you.
Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
clinches it.
On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:25 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, your post fails to post 3 times, and you decide that Rich Hickey
> > is a crazy dictator? Ever hear of a network outage? I have had posts
> > get lost and show up on Usenet days later.
>
> It wasn't a Usenet post. It was a Google Groups post, which Google's
> server explicitly said was "successful", and traffic in the group was
> otherwise normal for that period.
>
> If you post to a webboard (not usenet) and your posts, and ONLY your
> posts, fail to show up, you don't suspect an outage. Particularly not
> if you retry after six hours, then again after another twelve, with
> consistent results.
>
>
>
> > > >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> > > >> into-array to-array-2d
> > > >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> > > >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > > > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > > > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > > > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > > > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > > > "seq" even once.
> > > > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > > > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> > > >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > > > I disagree.
> > > >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > > > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > > > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > > > you agree?
>
> > You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
> > functions that operate on sequences.
>
> Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
>
> I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > > I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> > > abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> > > prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> > > lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> > > right of reply denied to its target.
>
> > I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
> > such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
>
> I did not.
>
> > > The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> > > that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> > > superior wisdom.
>
> > Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
> > group.
>
> If that is so, then it still indicates poor behavior on Rich's part:
> he raised the topic and did not censor his own post. Two other people
> posted blatant personal attacks, ruder than Rich's, for which he
> rebuked them, but he did not censor their posts. I posted a calm
> rebuttal on the same topic, far more civil than those other two and at
> least as civil as Rich's, and he does censor it. That's quite the
> double standard.
>
> (I note that you are no longer claiming the post disappearances were
> "network outages" and are now more or less admitting that they were in
> fact acts of censorship.)
>
> Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> topic and non-abusive.
>
> Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> kind.
>
> > Seems reasonable enough to me.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > > Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> > > c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> > > clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> > > an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
> > No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
> > moderators here.
>
> I have no interest in being an idiot. I do have an interest in
> justice, and in warning the public about the chilly reception people
> receive in a particular Google Group.
>
> > > Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> > Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
>
> I have no such personal crusade. I posted merely to thwart, to the
> extent possible, the censorship and to warn a potentially unsuspecting
> public.
>
> > I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
>
> Perhaps you'd also be satisfied if he allocated that fraction of his
> time, apparently considerably in excess of zero, currently budgeted
> for slamming people unreasonably and for post-censoring to code-
> writing instead?
>
> I know I would.
>
> Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
> Or maybe he can *really* man up, and apologize for the whole affair.
>
> It still astonishes me that what seems to have been an honest
> misunderstanding has blown up into this, with successive escalations
> by Rich and what's beginning to look like an actual honest-to-God goon
> squad.
>
> Escalations with mystifying lack of apparent motive.
>
> To recap:
>
> I post saying I didn't find X which I'd expected would be there,
> detailing the steps of my thorough search, and I even helpfully
> include actual (working, tested) code to implement X, plus example
> code (also tested and working) using it.
>
> Response: derision, name-calling, abuse.
>
> I post honestly baffled at the responses I got, reiterating in even
> more detail the search I had performed and politely pointing out that
> the responses a) were personal attacks and b) were not appreciated. I
> take care not to lose my cool, and to respond calmly and rationally.
>
> Response: Rich rebukes the two goons that posted the most egregious
> flames, and they apologize.
>
> At this point, it looks like a simple ordinary misunderstanding of
> some sort, resolved quickly by a mod putting his foot down in an
> appropriate manner. Perhaps those two had had bad days, or simply were
> themselves trolls (as one of them accused me of being).
>
> But...
>
> A short time later, Rich abruptly turns right around and flames me as
> well, accusing me vaguely of acting in bad faith, without being very
> specific as to the nature of the putative bad faith, aside from
> supposedly not searching the documents hard enough.
>
> Unbelieving, I reply, again calmly and rationally, to explain exactly
> how thorough my search actually was and to note that I'd noticed a
> general undercurrent of hostility there from the moment I'd arrived,
> one for which there was no obvious explanation.
>
> The result was basically just a reiteration of the same accusation of
> lacking thoroughness.
>
> I respond pointing out that the only possible more-thorough search I
> could have performed would have been to *read* the *entire* api page
> from top to bottom rather than grepping it. (It is 60 pages long, at
> 50 lines per page, and weighs in at approximately 200KB.)
>
> He deletes the response.
>
> Repeat a few times, and then here we are.
>
> Point to one single action of mine in the above sequence that wasn't,
> if anything, better than how you would have reacted had the same thing
> happened to you.
>
> Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> clinches it.
Wrexsoul, I saw that whole thread on the Clojure group for at least
two days, so I don't think you were censored. If it's not there now,
it is possible it was removed because it was ugly and distracting. I
don't speak for the group, so this is just speculation.
I know you caught some personal insults (for which you also received
apologies), but I recall you also had people who made efforts to get
to the bottom of your question and discuss it reasonably. Your flames
made it difficult for others to follow the thread and extract the
valuable parts.
Since you seem wounded and angry, I would just like to tell you
exactly what was objectionable about your original post. Instead of
simply writing that you couldn't find something, or simply asking
where you might find something, you expressed amazement that something
quite fundamental was missing from the language or docs. You then
posted some code. When you loudly (in writing) express something as a
serious deficiency on someone else's part (incorrectly, as it turned
out), then post code (unnecessary, as it turned out), you should
expect a reply that focuses more on your tone and your incorrectness
than on your "question".
Since writing may not correctly convey your actual emotion, you might
avoid expressions of amazement at someone else's perceived
shortcomings and state simply that you needed X, didn't find it, so
here's an idea about how to do X. Based on my experience on the
Clojure group, you would then receive a very friendly pointer to the
code or doc that explains X.
You may also contribute bug reports, code patches, and documentation
through established channels.
I hope you don't cling to your sense of grievance, and instead keep
working with and contributing to Clojure.
Regards,
Chris
On Jun 19, 10:08 am, revoltingdevelopment
<·····················@gmail.com> wrote:
...MASSIVE trim...
> Wrexsoul, I saw that whole thread on the Clojure group for at least
> two days, so I don't think you were censored.
The evidence says otherwise.
> If it's not there now, it is possible it was removed because it was
> ugly and distracting.
That would constitute censorship. "Ugly and distracting" is not "spam"
or "off-topic".
> I know you caught some personal insults (for which you also received
> apologies)
I also caught some for which I have yet to receive apologies, there
and now here.
> but I recall you also had people who made efforts to get
> to the bottom of your question and discuss it reasonably.
I didn't actually have a question. Perhaps this is part of the
problem. For some inexplicable reason people seem to think I'd asked a
question (and a stupid one) when I had not.
> Your flames made it difficult for others to follow the thread
MY flames?! I was reasonable, and reasonably polite, throughout, and
am trying to remain that way now.
> Since you seem wounded and angry, I would just like to tell you
> exactly what was objectionable about your original post.
Nothing was objectionable about my original post.
> Instead of simply writing that you couldn't find something, or simply
> asking where you might find something, you expressed amazement that
> something quite fundamental was missing from the language or docs.
I had just spent 30 minutes searching the docs and reading near every
single occurrence of the three-character-substring "seq". There were a
lot of occurrences. I hadn't found what I was looking for. The a
priori odds were very high that it therefore wasn't there.
As I believe I have already mentioned (and the key point that everyone
keeps ignoring, probably intentionally), the only more thorough search
I could possibly have performed was to read the entire 200KB 60-page
API document from cover to cover.
If that is what you believe I should have done, then we're never going
to agree or be able to discuss this productively.
> When you loudly (in writing) express something as a serious deficiency
> on someone else's part
The only loud expressions of serious deficiencies on any person's part
were aimed AT me. Reread the thread if you are misremembering it.
I mentioned that I found it shocking that a particular piece of
functionality was apparently still not implemented yet. That's the
closest I came to expressing a serious deficiency in anything, and the
target in that case was clojure.core, not a person.
Subsequently I may have intimated that there might be deficiencies in
some peoples' manners, but at that point, not without plenty of a)
provocation and b) evidence, with a lot of overlap between those two
categories.
> you should expect a reply that focuses more on your tone and your
> incorrectness than on your "question".
I had no tone, no "incorrectness", and no question, as I believe I've
explained previously.
Since apparently it needs explaining AGAIN:
1. Tone. I posted ASCII. ASCII has no tone, unlike audible voice. Any
tone I'm being attacked for is therefore a figment of the
attacker's imagination. I can't accept responsibility for the
sounds of the voices other people imagine when they read text I
wrote. It's entirely out of my control. Only the sequence of
the ASCII characters is in my control.
2. Correctness. I did a search that should be above reproach as
far as doc-searching-thoroughness is concerned, and therefore
believe I acted correctly, whether you agree that I did or not.
3. Question. I did not post a question. I posted a remark and then
some code, with a good faith constructive intent. That many
people apparently can't see that does not reflect on me in any
way; it does, however, reflect on them.
> Since writing may not correctly convey your actual emotion, you might
> avoid expressions of amazement at someone else's perceived
> shortcomings
I never expressed any amazement at any person's shortcomings,
perceived or actual, until I was already under attack. At that time, I
did perhaps express some amazement at how RUDE some people were being,
and with no provocation, but you can't argue that they were rude
BECAUSE of that; the real cause must have PRECEDED, rather than
followed, the effect.
> and state simply that you needed X, didn't find it, so
> here's an idea about how to do X.
That is in fact what I did, only going beyond "an idea" to include an
actual working implementation. An admirable act, for which the
response I got was diametrically opposite what would have been
appropriate.
> Based on my experience on the Clojure group, you would then receive
> a very friendly pointer to the code or doc that explains X.
"Very friendly" and "Clojure group" do not, in my experience, belong
together in a sentence, unless joined with the word "not" somewhere in
between.
> I hope you don't cling to your sense of grievance, and instead keep
> working with and contributing to Clojure.
That choice has been taken from me, since clearly I've been in some
manner banned from posting to that group.
Working with: I may well continue to use it. Contributing to: it's
become quite clear, from this and previous threads, that my
contributions are not wanted, so I shall keep any further would-be
contributions to myself. That wouldn't be my first choice (and
demonstrably wasn't), but since it's clearly what the group's manager
wants, and the group's manager clearly exerts dictatorial authority,
sadly that's the way it'll have to be.
As for my sense of grievance, it might go away on its own some time
after people quit flaming me for my purportedly having smeared some
unnamed person in my first "accum" post (I had not) or purportedly not
having bothered to search the docs (I had done so, with the described
thoroughness).
I don't feel it unjustified. If a pretty thorough search of the docs
fails to turn something up that is in there, then there's a problem
with the docs. If it's not in there, but should be, then there's a
problem with the API.
Instead of letting it be about improving the docs and/or API, though,
several people chose to instead make it be about a person (me) and
that person's supposed shortcomings. That's where things went wrong.
Not with any action of mine. The really disappointing thing is that
the creator of Clojure was one of those people. As near as I can tell,
he took a remark evidencing that either the API or the documentation
was still missing something personally, when it wasn't about him, and
leaped to flaming the guy that noticed the problem, thereby making it
personal. I expect better from a software project's major developers.
You don't get far in the software-development world if you take every
bug report, omission report/feature request, or similar event
personally. Yet several people apparently did take an omission report
personally, whereas you can see that the only remarks that I have
taken personally were ones that clearly were personal attacks. When
people suggested changes to some of the code I'd posted, I didn't take
that personally.
I tried to not only be constructive and act in good faith, but to set
a good example. This whole incident goes to show, though, that no good
deed goes unpunished.
On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:25 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, your post fails to post 3 times, and you decide that Rich Hickey
> > is a crazy dictator? Ever hear of a network outage? I have had posts
> > get lost and show up on Usenet days later.
>
> It wasn't a Usenet post. It was a Google Groups post, which Google's
> server explicitly said was "successful", and traffic in the group was
> otherwise normal for that period.
>
> If you post to a webboard (not usenet) and your posts, and ONLY your
> posts, fail to show up, you don't suspect an outage. Particularly not
> if you retry after six hours, then again after another twelve, with
> consistent results.
>
I suspect a network outage on my ISP's end.
Generally I also don't suspect a dictatorial conspiracy when my posts
were actually reasonable.
:-)
>
>
> > > >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> > > >> into-array to-array-2d
> > > >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> > > >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > > > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > > > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > > > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > > > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > > > "seq" even once.
> > > > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > > > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> > > >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > > > I disagree.
> > > >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > > > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > > > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > > > you agree?
>
> > You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
> > functions that operate on sequences.
>
> Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
Are you accusing me of not being thorough? You expect me to read the /
entire/ post? that's ridiculous.
> I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
So you did or didn't find reduce? Another thing I do when search
documentation is I look for synonyms, because, you know, they're
synonymous. For example had you gone to wikipedia and looked up 'fold'
probably would have found that 'reduce' is a synonym.
Aside from that, when i'm learning a new programming language, I
generally do read through the entire documentation (at least) one time
(and a few tutorials). Saves me trouble of re-inventing the wheel. But
perhaps I'm a total nerd.
> > > I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> > > abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> > > prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> > > lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> > > right of reply denied to its target.
>
> > I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
> > such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
>
> I did not.
>
You didn't find a documented function that has a reasonable name with
exactly the same functionality as you wanted.
> > > The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> > > that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> > > superior wisdom.
>
> > Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
> > group.
>
> If that is so, then it still indicates poor behavior on Rich's part:
> he raised the topic and did not censor his own post. Two other people
> posted blatant personal attacks, ruder than Rich's, for which he
> rebuked them, but he did not censor their posts. I posted a calm
> rebuttal on the same topic, far more civil than those other two and at
> least as civil as Rich's, and he does censor it. That's quite the
> double standard.
>
Possibly, but he is a moderator (there is an inherent double
standard), and telling you that you weren't thorough is completely
different from arguing about whether you were thorough.
> (I note that you are no longer claiming the post disappearances were
> "network outages" and are now more or less admitting that they were in
> fact acts of censorship.)
>
I am operating under your assumptions. Even under your assumptions
his deletion of your post is not unreasonable that he deleted it...
> Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> topic and non-abusive.
>
> Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> kind.
>
Was it on topic or was it political?
At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
malicious is conjecture. I suspect he was trying to avoid a thread
like this one on the clojure google group.
> > Seems reasonable enough to me.
>
> I disagree.
>
Well you aren't exactly an unbiased party in the matter.
> > > Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> > > c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> > > clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> > > an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
> > No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
> > moderators here.
>
> I have no interest in being an idiot. I do have an interest in
> justice, and in warning the public about the chilly reception people
> receive in a particular Google Group.
>
There is no justice on the Internet(s).
:-)
> > > Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> > Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
>
> I have no such personal crusade. I posted merely to thwart, to the
> extent possible, the censorship and to warn a potentially unsuspecting
> public.
>
OK, I'm going to apologise for this. It was kind of meant to be funny
but didn't really come off as such.
> > I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
>
> Perhaps you'd also be satisfied if he allocated that fraction of his
> time, apparently considerably in excess of zero, currently budgeted
> for slamming people unreasonably and for post-censoring to code-
> writing instead?
>
Yes, that was the point. :-)
> I know I would.
>
> Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
Wait? who is the flunky? me? I have no affiliation with Rich Hickey,
nor am I his lackey. I don't even use Clojure.
> Or maybe he can *really* man up, and apologize for the whole affair.
>
> It still astonishes me that what seems to have been an honest
> misunderstanding has blown up into this, with successive escalations
> by Rich and what's beginning to look like an actual honest-to-God goon
> squad.
>
It takes two to escalate an escalation.
> Escalations with mystifying lack of apparent motive.
>
> To recap:
>
> I post saying I didn't find X which I'd expected would be there,
> detailing the steps of my thorough search, and I even helpfully
> include actual (working, tested) code to implement X, plus example
> code (also tested and working) using it.
>
> Response: derision, name-calling, abuse.
>
> I post honestly baffled at the responses I got, reiterating in even
> more detail the search I had performed and politely pointing out that
> the responses a) were personal attacks and b) were not appreciated. I
> take care not to lose my cool, and to respond calmly and rationally.
>
> Response: Rich rebukes the two goons that posted the most egregious
> flames, and they apologize.
>
> At this point, it looks like a simple ordinary misunderstanding of
> some sort, resolved quickly by a mod putting his foot down in an
> appropriate manner. Perhaps those two had had bad days, or simply were
> themselves trolls (as one of them accused me of being).
>
> But...
>
> A short time later, Rich abruptly turns right around and flames me as
> well, accusing me vaguely of acting in bad faith, without being very
> specific as to the nature of the putative bad faith, aside from
> supposedly not searching the documents hard enough.
>
> Unbelieving, I reply, again calmly and rationally, to explain exactly
> how thorough my search actually was and to note that I'd noticed a
> general undercurrent of hostility there from the moment I'd arrived,
> one for which there was no obvious explanation.
>
> The result was basically just a reiteration of the same accusation of
> lacking thoroughness.
>
I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
he lacks thoroughness. That sort of level of sensitivity is generally
an indicator of trolling. Or at least, idk, an unproductive level of
sensitivity.
> I respond pointing out that the only possible more-thorough search I
> could have performed would have been to *read* the *entire* api page
> from top to bottom rather than grepping it. (It is 60 pages long, at
> 50 lines per page, and weighs in at approximately 200KB.)
>
> He deletes the response.
>
> Repeat a few times, and then here we are.
>
> Point to one single action of mine in the above sequence that wasn't,
> if anything, better than how you would have reacted had the same thing
> happened to you.
>
Deleting the response to quell further discussion of the topic seems
reasonable. It at least would have saved you discussion of the ways in
which you lack thoroughness. Now I'm sure you won't be satisified
until we have detailed every possible way in which you were not
thorough. :-P
> Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> clinches it.
I am not in Rich Hickeys goon.
I can't even get clojure installed properly.
:-P
The persecution act does not make you more credible. :-)
Anyway, have a good one.
On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > If you post to a webboard (not usenet) and your posts, and ONLY your
> > posts, fail to show up, you don't suspect an outage. Particularly not
> > if you retry after six hours, then again after another twelve, with
> > consistent results.
>
> I suspect a network outage on my ISP's end.
A network outage at my end would have caused a timeout error or
similar problem when I hit "send", and would have prevented a "posted
successfully" response from Google's server. If the latter message
appears, which it did, the message made it to Google's servers. At
that point, in fact, no *network* outage can wreck things, since it's
actually *arrived*; a post to a Google Group (not usenet group)
"lives" on those same Google servers. An internal fault in the server
could cause a failure at that point, but would affect everyone posting
to that Google Group, because (again unlike a usenet group) that
server is the sole repository of the posts to that group.
> Generally I also don't suspect a dictatorial conspiracy when my posts
> were actually reasonable.
Neither do I, unless enough evidence mounts. I made multiple attempts,
while observing normal traffic to the group from its other users, over
the space of 18 hours, before concluding that my posts were being
singled out for differential treatment.
> > > > >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> > > > >> into-array to-array-2d
> > > > >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> > > > >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > > > > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > > > > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > > > > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > > > > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > > > > "seq" even once.
> > > > > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > > > > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> > > > >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > > > > I disagree.
> > > > >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > > > > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > > > > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > > > > you agree?
>
> > > You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
> > > functions that operate on sequences.
>
> > Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
>
> Are you accusing me of not being thorough? You expect me to read the /
> entire/ post? that's ridiculous.
I read yours. Mine was only five or so pages long, not some ludicrous
rantfest like you sometimes see. Nothing ridiculous about expecting
you to at least have skimmed it, and read particularly relevant
passages, including the bit where I described just how thoroughly I
had searched.
> > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> So you did or didn't find reduce?
Didn't.
> Another thing I do when search documentation is I look for synonyms,
> because, you know, they're synonymous.
The synonyms I knew of were "accumulate" and "fold".
My exact procedure was:
* Searched API page for "accum" and "fold"
* Went to "sequences" page, "using a sequence" section, ignored
things like another sequence/collection from a seq or boolean from
a seq and didn't see anything plausible looking elsewhere.
* Went back to API page and read near every single occurrence of
"seq" that proved to be either "sequence" or just "seq"
(there were a few occurrences of "subsequent" that I judged to be
irrelevant to the sequence operations).
And then I implemented the apparently-missing functionality myself and
tested it to make sure it worked, rather that bother the forum to ask.
When I did post to the forum, it was to provide what I had not been
able to find already there; that is, to aid others rather than to
place demands upon others.
Look at the thanks I got.
> For example had you gone to wikipedia and looked up 'fold'
I wasn't searching wikipedia. I was searching the clojure API docs.
> Aside from that, when i'm learning a new programming language, I
> generally do read through the entire documentation (at least) one time
The basic documentation. Not the API documentation. Imagine if the
latter was the expectation. It would be years between downloading a
JDK and writing any code in Java, since there are megs and megs of API
documentation in that particular case.
Regardless, maybe you would have read 200K of documentation but I
don't think I should have to go that far, and I didn't go that far. I
stand by that choice. Whereas you are free to make another, I believe
I was still thorough enough to NOT deserve flamage from you or anybody
else for making the choice I made.
> (and a few tutorials). Saves me trouble of re-inventing the wheel. But
> perhaps I'm a total nerd.
Tempting, ever so tempting. :)
> > > > I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> > > > abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> > > > prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> > > > lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> > > > right of reply denied to its target.
>
> > > I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
> > > such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
>
> > I did not.
>
> You didn't find a documented function that has a reasonable name with
> exactly the same functionality as you wanted.
But not for lack of thoroughness. It seems that for some reason the
documentation of this function completely fails to mention "seq"
anywhere in it. This is a problem. The primary interface most people
will have to the documentation is search, NOT reading the whole thing
from start to finish like it was a novel. Whether you agree that's how
it SHOULD be or not, that's how it IS, and it is therefore a bug if a
particular bit of documentation is written in such a manner as to be
missed by a likely relevant search.
> > > > The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> > > > that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> > > > superior wisdom.
>
> > > Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
> > > group.
>
> > If that is so, then it still indicates poor behavior on Rich's part:
> > he raised the topic and did not censor his own post. Two other people
> > posted blatant personal attacks, ruder than Rich's, for which he
> > rebuked them, but he did not censor their posts. I posted a calm
> > rebuttal on the same topic, far more civil than those other two and at
> > least as civil as Rich's, and he does censor it. That's quite the
> > double standard.
>
> Possibly, but he is a moderator (there is an inherent double
> standard)
There is not an inherent double standard. He should play by the same
rules as everyone else, even if he happens to be the one also
enforcing them. He blatantly did NOT play by the same rules as
everyone else.
The concept is called "rule of law" and there's a reason why almost
all of the more socially and economically advanced nations have it as
a guiding principle.
> and telling you that you weren't thorough is completely
> different from arguing about whether you were thorough.
That doesn't make sense.
Regardless, I feel it is the right of every person to argue before the
same audience against any personal attack directed at them. There's a
reason why almost all of the more socially and economically advanced
nations have a right of a defendant to face their accusers and the
evidence against them, and to argue in their own defense, or have
their counsel do so, before the jury.
A "trial" in which someone is accused, found guilty, and sentenced
without the opportunity to present any contrary argument or challenge
the prosecution on matters of procedure or burden-of-proof is a farce,
a kangaroo court, and not a real one.
The evidence indicates that I was accused, found guilty, and sentenced
to muzzling in that Google Group without the opportunity to defend
myself; and, furthermore, wrongly convicted.
I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
> > (I note that you are no longer claiming the post disappearances were
> > "network outages" and are now more or less admitting that they were in
> > fact acts of censorship.)
>
> I am operating under your assumptions. Even under your assumptions
> his deletion of your post is not unreasonable that he deleted it...
It is unreasonable for two reasons:
1. Since it was partly about the Clojure docs, it was not off-topic,
and by no stretch of the imagination was it spam or otherwise
abusive.
2. Under any conceivable rule, based solely on content, under which
it would be classified as abusive/spam/otherwise objectionable,
the post by Rich Hickey to which it was a response would be
classified identically, yet the latter was not treated the same.
Therefore, the rule actually employed to determine what to
delete involved other factors, perhaps authorship, that are
irrelevant to the question of whether content is acceptable or
not. In other words, either I was singled out for special
bad treatment (unreasonable!) or Rich elevates himself to
special status (a double standard!).
> > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > kind.
>
> Was it on topic or was it political?
It was both.
> At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> malicious is conjecture.
So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
any such deletion was malicious.
Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
> I suspect he was trying to avoid a thread like this one on the clojure
> google group.
He could have avoided that very easily, either by a) not attacking me
after his two posts rebuking the other two for posting personal
attacks, or b) attacking me, allowing my post defending myself to
stand, and not posting any further attacks.
He didn't choose to do either. Instead, he attacked me, when I
defended myself he attacked me again, and when I defended myself again
he muzzled me. Hardly an honorable way to "win" an argument. In fact,
I call it cheating, not winning.
> > > Seems reasonable enough to me.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> Well you aren't exactly an unbiased party in the matter.
On the contrary, I'm quite capable of being dispassionate about such
things. I pointed out objective facts, such as that the post was
(partly) about Clojure's documentation, to support a contention that
it was not off-topic.
Furthermore, need I remind you that a far more unconstructive personal
attack was allowed to stand undeleted:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/ff6d7945f730c71f?dmode=source
I quote it below, because, as incriminating evidence, it might be
subjected to deletion after this post of mine goes to the presses:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.8.17 with SMTP id 17mr575817anh.18.1245214651024;
Tue, 16
Jun 2009 21:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <····································@storytotell.org>
X-IP: 76.99.157.51
References: <7d73ddee-2f7d-4020-bdc6-
············@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
<····································@storytotell.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-
us)
AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/530.17,gzip
(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <bd454cb0-1f47-4ee6-bd68-
············@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: accum
From: Sean Devlin <··············@gmail.com>
To: Clojure <·······@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll
On Jun 17, 12:44=A0am, Daniel Lyons <······@storytotell.org> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Wrexsoul wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm shocked that this is missing from clojure.core:
>
> > (defn accum [f init coll]
> > =A0(loop [x init c coll]
> > =A0 =A0(if (empty? c)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0x
> > =A0 =A0 =A0(recur (f x (first c)) (rest c)))))
>
> > user=3D> (accum + 0 [1 2 3])
> > 6
> > user=3D> (accum + 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
> > 15
>
> > This is one of the most basic, useful functions in functional
> > programming. :)
>
> Indeed! It's called reduce:
>
> http://clojure.org/api#toc476
>
> I'm shocked you haven't noticed it in the API documentation. Being =A0
> able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming. =A0
> Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's any triangular number:
>
> > (defn tri [n] (accum + 0 (take n (iterate inc 1))))
>
> > Here's a lazy seq of them all:
>
> > (def *tris* (for [i (iterate inc 1)] (tri i)))
>
> > This, however, is more efficient (and demonstrates another case where
> > super-lazy-seq makes something very compact and readable):
>
> > (defn accum-map [f init coll]
> > =A0(super-lazy-seq [x init c coll]
> > =A0 =A0(if (seq c)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0(next-item x (f x (first c)) (rest c)))))
>
> > (def *tris* (rest (accum-map + 0 (iterate inc 1))))
>
> > Notice how similar the accum-map code is to the accum code? With just
> > lazy-seq it would not be as clear. :)
>
> Oh? What about compared to this:
>
> (use 'clojure.contrib.seq-utils)
>
> (def *tris* (reductions + (iterate inc 1)))
>
> =97
The only original line of body text was:
"Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll"
If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
briefly.
I think this is sufficient proof of a double standard in what posts
get deleted, and also that it is not merely that Rich allows certain
posts by himself to stand that he wouldn't allow from others, but that
either a special privilege extends beyond Rich to a clique of several
people that have "licenses to be boorish" or similarly, or else that
the double standard was not in favor of anyone, but rather was
*against* someone -- me.
> > > > Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> > > > c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> > > > clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> > > > an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
> > > No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
> > > moderators here.
>
> > I have no interest in being an idiot. I do have an interest in
> > justice, and in warning the public about the chilly reception people
> > receive in a particular Google Group.
>
> There is no justice on the Internet(s).
> :-)
That is a lament, not a justification or even an excuse for what has
happened.
> > > > Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> > > Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
>
> > I have no such personal crusade. I posted merely to thwart, to the
> > extent possible, the censorship and to warn a potentially unsuspecting
> > public.
>
> OK, I'm going to apologise for this. It was kind of meant to be funny
> but didn't really come off as such.
Apology accepted.
> > > I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
>
> > Perhaps you'd also be satisfied if he allocated that fraction of his
> > time, apparently considerably in excess of zero, currently budgeted
> > for slamming people unreasonably and for post-censoring to code-
> > writing instead?
>
> Yes, that was the point. :-)
No "crusade" of mine forced him to allocate time to either personal
attacks or post deleting. He could have simply ignored me, yet he
chose not to. He could have chosen to respond like an adult to what I
wrote, realizing that he was wrong in his hasty judgment of me and
maybe apologizing for this, but he chose not to do that, either. He
also could have chosen not to take the initial post personally.
Of course, it's not too late for him to make the choice to realize his
error and adjust his future behavior, and maybe even to apologize, but
after several days of silence from him on the topic, I don't expect
the latter, and don't hold out too much hope for the former, either.
> > Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> > directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> > one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
> Wait? who is the flunky? me? I have no affiliation with Rich Hickey,
> nor am I his lackey. I don't even use Clojure.
That's odd. As soon as a post appeared in here that was even mildly
critical of Rich, you pounced on it, sparing no time to hit it within
a few hours of its being posted. That to me suggests that either Rich
sent you as his representative, or else you voluntarily leap to his
defense whenever he is challenged (and even when it may not be
appropriate, because you'd find yourself occupying the moral low
ground).
That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
car, and ego, that is.)
> > Or maybe he can *really* man up, and apologize for the whole affair.
>
> > It still astonishes me that what seems to have been an honest
> > misunderstanding has blown up into this, with successive escalations
> > by Rich and what's beginning to look like an actual honest-to-God goon
> > squad.
>
> It takes two to escalate an escalation.
I never did escalate anything. In fact, I tried to de-escalate things
by remaining calm and polite in my responses, whatever the
provocation.
Anyway, it really doesn't take two. Imagine China invaded the US, and
the US did nothing but fight the invaders within its own borders,
without launching any retaliation against China. Then China nuked New
York and the US continued to only fight within its own borders.
Clearly there's a) a fight and b) escalation going on here, and
equally clearly, it's pretty much unilateral; China is the only
aggressor in this hypothetical situation.
A situation which, aside from its scale, is entirely analogous to the
one under discussion here.
> > To recap:
>
> > I post saying I didn't find X which I'd expected would be there,
> > detailing the steps of my thorough search, and I even helpfully
> > include actual (working, tested) code to implement X, plus example
> > code (also tested and working) using it.
>
> > Response: derision, name-calling, abuse.
>
> > I post honestly baffled at the responses I got, reiterating in even
> > more detail the search I had performed and politely pointing out that
> > the responses a) were personal attacks and b) were not appreciated. I
> > take care not to lose my cool, and to respond calmly and rationally.
>
> > Response: Rich rebukes the two goons that posted the most egregious
> > flames, and they apologize.
>
> > At this point, it looks like a simple ordinary misunderstanding of
> > some sort, resolved quickly by a mod putting his foot down in an
> > appropriate manner. Perhaps those two had had bad days, or simply were
> > themselves trolls (as one of them accused me of being).
>
> > But...
>
> > A short time later, Rich abruptly turns right around and flames me as
> > well, accusing me vaguely of acting in bad faith, without being very
> > specific as to the nature of the putative bad faith, aside from
> > supposedly not searching the documents hard enough.
>
> > Unbelieving, I reply, again calmly and rationally, to explain exactly
> > how thorough my search actually was and to note that I'd noticed a
> > general undercurrent of hostility there from the moment I'd arrived,
> > one for which there was no obvious explanation.
>
> > The result was basically just a reiteration of the same accusation of
> > lacking thoroughness.
>
> I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> he lacks thoroughness.
I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
there, and then I get told "Being
able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
Just one!
> > I respond pointing out that the only possible more-thorough search I
> > could have performed would have been to *read* the *entire* api page
> > from top to bottom rather than grepping it. (It is 60 pages long, at
> > 50 lines per page, and weighs in at approximately 200KB.)
>
> > He deletes the response.
>
> > Repeat a few times, and then here we are.
>
> > Point to one single action of mine in the above sequence that wasn't,
> > if anything, better than how you would have reacted had the same thing
> > happened to you.
>
> Deleting the response to quell further discussion of the topic seems
> reasonable.
NO, IT DOESN'T.
> It at least would have saved you discussion of the ways in
> which you lack thoroughness.
What, all zero of them? HOW many TIMES will I have to REPEAT the
detailed description of my very thorough search before people start
believing that I actually performed a very thorough search?
Note that the current documentation for "reduce" says: (quoting in
case the web site ever changes)
(reduce f coll)
(reduce f val coll)
f should be a function of 2 arguments. If val is not supplied, returns
the result of applying f to the first 2 items in coll, then applying f
to that result and the 3rd item, etc. If coll contains no items, f
must accept no arguments as well, and reduce returns the result of
calling f with no arguments. If coll has only 1 item, it is returned
and f is not called. If val is supplied, returns the result of
applying f to val and the first item in coll, then applying f to that
result and the 2nd item, etc. If coll contains no items, returns val
and f is not called.
Note the absence of "seq" anywhere in there, surprisingly for a
sequence-oriented function. It's probably the only function not
specialized for vectors, maps, or sets for which a search for "seq"
draws a blank.
It's pure accident. Not my fault that my search didn't find it. Not
anyone else's fault either, though now that it's been noticed,
rewording the text to mention "seq" somewhere might be a good idea.
Perhaps you think I should have searched for "coll" instead, or known
the name "reduce". But hindsight is always 20/20. I was thinking in
terms of sequences, and in terms of integer, rather than boolean or
collection, results, at the time. So sue me.
> Now I'm sure you won't be satisified until we have detailed every
> possible way in which you were not thorough. :-P
Since there were zero (short of searching for every synonym I could
think up and/or reading the whole api page from top to bottom over a
period of several full hours), we've already (vacuously) done so.
> > Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> > goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> > Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> > explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> > watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> > flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> > and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> > clinches it.
>
> I am not in Rich Hickeys goon.
Fine. Regardless, I don't think you've done a very good job of
defending him. The closest you've come is to claim deleting my post
was "reasonable", have that claim solidly debunked, and then merely
reiterate it, and to suggest that it's perfectly OK for him to apply a
double standard(!). After that latter, if I were Rich and you were my
goon you'd be fired and another goon found to replace you. :)
> I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> :-P
Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
development environment that supports developing your code and testing
it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
it, won't hang NB.)
> The persecution act does not make you more credible. :-)
Are you calling me a liar?
I have provided some evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
any evidence posted that supports your side.
I think the survival of the above-cited "WrexTroll" post long after
the deletions of my previously-cited much-more-topical-and-
constructive ones is pretty damning. You will have to try very hard to
come up with any defense that could plausibly succeed in the face of
that bit of evidence favoring my interpretations and judgments.
On Jun 20, 12:33 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > If you post to a webboard (not usenet) and your posts, and ONLY your
> > > posts, fail to show up, you don't suspect an outage. Particularly not
> > > if you retry after six hours, then again after another twelve, with
> > > consistent results.
>
> > I suspect a network outage on my ISP's end.
>
> A network outage at my end would have caused a timeout error or
> similar problem when I hit "send", and would have prevented a "posted
> successfully" response from Google's server. If the latter message
> appears, which it did, the message made it to Google's servers. At
> that point, in fact, no *network* outage can wreck things, since it's
> actually *arrived*; a post to a Google Group (not usenet group)
> "lives" on those same Google servers. An internal fault in the server
> could cause a failure at that point, but would affect everyone posting
> to that Google Group, because (again unlike a usenet group) that
> server is the sole repository of the posts to that group.
>
Yeah that's true.
> > Generally I also don't suspect a dictatorial conspiracy when my posts
> > were actually reasonable.
>
> Neither do I, unless enough evidence mounts. I made multiple attempts,
> while observing normal traffic to the group from its other users, over
> the space of 18 hours, before concluding that my posts were being
> singled out for differential treatment.
>
Ah, that's a bit more clear cut then.
> > > > > >> Construct a collection from a seq: zipmap into reduce set vec
> > > > > >> into-array to-array-2d
> > > > > >> Compute a boolean from a seq: not-empty some reduce seq?
> > > > > >> every? not-every? not-any? empty?
> > > > > > But I was not looking to construct a collection or a boolean so I
> > > > > > looked elsewhere, eventually searching the whole api page for
> > > > > > every occurrence of "seq". Strangely, it seems the
> > > > > > documentation for "reduce" does not mention the concept of
> > > > > > "seq" even once.
> > > > > > This was not a failure of due diligence on my part. It was pure
> > > > > > happenstance. So please spare me the personal criticisms.
> > > > > >> The only thing that was missing was thoroughness
> > > > > > I disagree.
> > > > > >> and a willingness to ask, on your part.
> > > > > > I think it is better if one helps herself, and possibly others,
> > > > > > instead of bothering the forum with noob questions. Don't
> > > > > > you agree?
>
> > > > You didn't even look at the page on sequences when looking for
> > > > functions that operate on sequences.
>
> > > Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
>
> > Are you accusing me of not being thorough? You expect me to read the /
> > entire/ post? that's ridiculous.
>
> I read yours. Mine was only five or so pages long, not some ludicrous
> rantfest like you sometimes see. Nothing ridiculous about expecting
> you to at least have skimmed it, and read particularly relevant
> passages, including the bit where I described just how thoroughly I
> had searched.
>
No, I did skim it, I just didn't read it thoroughly and backtrack
through the clojure google group. It was more an admission of my own
lack of thoroughness.
> > > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > So you did or didn't find reduce?
>
> Didn't.
>
So maybe its an error in technique rather than thoroughness?
> > Another thing I do when search documentation is I look for synonyms,
> > because, you know, they're synonymous.
>
> The synonyms I knew of were "accumulate" and "fold".
>
Yeah, I think it might be a culture difference, I mean, in CL docs it
is called reduce.
It is interesting that reduce is in the 'create a collection' and
'create a boolean' sections, but it doesn't necessarily create a
collection or a boolean. :-)
But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases. (had
a heck of a time figuring out that 'reduce' in erlang is called
'foldl'.) :-)
> My exact procedure was:
> * Searched API page for "accum" and "fold"
> * Went to "sequences" page, "using a sequence" section, ignored
> things like another sequence/collection from a seq or boolean from
> a seq and didn't see anything plausible looking elsewhere.
> * Went back to API page and read near every single occurrence of
> "seq" that proved to be either "sequence" or just "seq"
> (there were a few occurrences of "subsequent" that I judged to be
> irrelevant to the sequence operations).
>
> And then I implemented the apparently-missing functionality myself and
> tested it to make sure it worked, rather that bother the forum to ask.
>
> When I did post to the forum, it was to provide what I had not been
> able to find already there; that is, to aid others rather than to
> place demands upon others.
>
> Look at the thanks I got.
>
> > For example had you gone to wikipedia and looked up 'fold'
>
> I wasn't searching wikipedia. I was searching the clojure API docs.
>
You didn't find it in the api docs, so look for a synonym and try
again.
> > Aside from that, when i'm learning a new programming language, I
> > generally do read through the entire documentation (at least) one time
>
> The basic documentation. Not the API documentation. Imagine if the
> latter was the expectation. It would be years between downloading a
> JDK and writing any code in Java, since there are megs and megs of API
> documentation in that particular case.
>
> Regardless, maybe you would have read 200K of documentation but I
> don't think I should have to go that far, and I didn't go that far. I
> stand by that choice. Whereas you are free to make another, I believe
> I was still thorough enough to NOT deserve flamage from you or anybody
> else for making the choice I made.
>
> > (and a few tutorials). Saves me trouble of re-inventing the wheel. But
> > perhaps I'm a total nerd.
>
> Tempting, ever so tempting. :)
>
> > > > > I reiterate: no reasonable person should consider the above in any way
> > > > > abusive, yet it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that I was forcibly
> > > > > prevented from posting it there, in response to a false accusation of
> > > > > lacking thoroughness. A personal attack was mooted publicly and public
> > > > > right of reply denied to its target.
>
> > > > I don't see how telling you that you lacked thoroughness is worthy of
> > > > such a long post. You did, it appears, lack thoroughness.
>
> > > I did not.
>
> > You didn't find a documented function that has a reasonable name with
> > exactly the same functionality as you wanted.
>
> But not for lack of thoroughness. It seems that for some reason the
> documentation of this function completely fails to mention "seq"
> anywhere in it. This is a problem. The primary interface most people
> will have to the documentation is search, NOT reading the whole thing
> from start to finish like it was a novel. Whether you agree that's how
> it SHOULD be or not, that's how it IS, and it is therefore a bug if a
> particular bit of documentation is written in such a manner as to be
> missed by a likely relevant search.
>
Well really, I more skim the definitions and relate them to constructs
in other languages that I already know.
> > > > > The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> > > > > that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> > > > > superior wisdom.
>
> > > > Your thoroughness is not a topic for discussion on the clojure google
> > > > group.
>
> > > If that is so, then it still indicates poor behavior on Rich's part:
> > > he raised the topic and did not censor his own post. Two other people
> > > posted blatant personal attacks, ruder than Rich's, for which he
> > > rebuked them, but he did not censor their posts. I posted a calm
> > > rebuttal on the same topic, far more civil than those other two and at
> > > least as civil as Rich's, and he does censor it. That's quite the
> > > double standard.
>
> > Possibly, but he is a moderator (there is an inherent double
> > standard)
>
> There is not an inherent double standard. He should play by the same
> rules as everyone else, even if he happens to be the one also
> enforcing them. He blatantly did NOT play by the same rules as
> everyone else.
>
Well, he makes the rules, and being that he is human, it is hard to be
fully unbiased about such things. I mean, think of it this way, if he
had rebuked the flames and told you to be a bit more thorough next
time, you could have just left it at that (whether or not you believe
that you were not thorough).
> The concept is called "rule of law" and there's a reason why almost
> all of the more socially and economically advanced nations have it as
> a guiding principle.
>
Ideally the law is applied even-handedly, but this is rarely the
case.
(Because people are human and inherently biased).
> > and telling you that you weren't thorough is completely
> > different from arguing about whether you were thorough.
>
> That doesn't make sense.
>
> Regardless, I feel it is the right of every person to argue before the
> same audience against any personal attack directed at them. There's a
> reason why almost all of the more socially and economically advanced
> nations have a right of a defendant to face their accusers and the
> evidence against them, and to argue in their own defense, or have
> their counsel do so, before the jury.
>
> A "trial" in which someone is accused, found guilty, and sentenced
> without the opportunity to present any contrary argument or challenge
> the prosecution on matters of procedure or burden-of-proof is a farce,
> a kangaroo court, and not a real one.
>
> The evidence indicates that I was accused, found guilty, and sentenced
> to muzzling in that Google Group without the opportunity to defend
> myself; and, furthermore, wrongly convicted.
>
> I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
> THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
>
I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
group.
But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
Right, but the accusation on the Google group that you were not
thorough is a trivial one.
> > > (I note that you are no longer claiming the post disappearances were
> > > "network outages" and are now more or less admitting that they were in
> > > fact acts of censorship.)
>
> > I am operating under your assumptions. Even under your assumptions
> > his deletion of your post is not unreasonable that he deleted it...
>
> It is unreasonable for two reasons:
>
> 1. Since it was partly about the Clojure docs, it was not off-topic,
> and by no stretch of the imagination was it spam or otherwise
> abusive.
> 2. Under any conceivable rule, based solely on content, under which
> it would be classified as abusive/spam/otherwise objectionable,
> the post by Rich Hickey to which it was a response would be
> classified identically, yet the latter was not treated the same.
> Therefore, the rule actually employed to determine what to
> delete involved other factors, perhaps authorship, that are
> irrelevant to the question of whether content is acceptable or
> not. In other words, either I was singled out for special
> bad treatment (unreasonable!) or Rich elevates himself to
> special status (a double standard!).
>
Didn't I just say there's an inherent double standard in moderator-
ship?
You post a jab at rich, he deletes it... not shocking.
> > > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > > kind.
>
> > Was it on topic or was it political?
>
> It was both.
>
Would it make the political part off topic?
> > At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> > malicious is conjecture.
>
> So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
> deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
> any such deletion was malicious.
>
Well you have bias too.
Objectionableness isn't something that can be held to an objective
standard.
You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
malice.
> Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
> guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
> does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
> attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
> didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
>
Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
anyway?
> > I suspect he was trying to avoid a thread like this one on the clojure
> > google group.
>
> He could have avoided that very easily, either by a) not attacking me
> after his two posts rebuking the other two for posting personal
> attacks, or b) attacking me, allowing my post defending myself to
> stand, and not posting any further attacks.
>
> He didn't choose to do either. Instead, he attacked me, when I
> defended myself he attacked me again, and when I defended myself again
> he muzzled me. Hardly an honourable way to "win" an argument. In fact,
> I call it cheating, not winning.
>
Your thoroughness is subjective and as such a debate of it isn't
winnable.
> > > > Seems reasonable enough to me.
>
> > > I disagree.
>
> > Well you aren't exactly an unbiased party in the matter.
>
> On the contrary, I'm quite capable of being dispassionate about such
> things. I pointed out objective facts, such as that the post was
> (partly) about Clojure's documentation, to support a contention that
> it was not off-topic.
>
> Furthermore, need I remind you that a far more unconstructive personal
> attack was allowed to stand undeleted:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/ff6d7945f730c71f?dmode=source
>
> I quote it below, because, as incriminating evidence, it might be
> subjected to deletion after this post of mine goes to the presses:
>
But don't you want it deleted?
Seems like a catch-22 now...
It gets 'moderated' and he's hiding incriminating evidence, it doesn't
get moderated, he's allowing an egregiously offensive post to stay
posted.
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: by 10.100.8.17 with SMTP id 17mr575817anh.18.1245214651024;
> Tue, 16
> Jun 2009 21:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <····································@storytotell.org>
> X-IP: 76.99.157.51
> References: <7d73ddee-2f7d-4020-bdc6-
> ············@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
> <····································@storytotell.org>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-
> us)
> AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/530.17,gzip
> (gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Message-ID: <bd454cb0-1f47-4ee6-bd68-
> ············@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: accum
> From: Sean Devlin <··············@gmail.com>
> To: Clojure <·······@googlegroups.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll
>
> On Jun 17, 12:44=A0am, Daniel Lyons <······@storytotell.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Wrexsoul wrote:
>
> > > I'm shocked that this is missing from clojure.core:
>
> > > (defn accum [f init coll]
> > > =A0(loop [x init c coll]
> > > =A0 =A0(if (empty? c)
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0x
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0(recur (f x (first c)) (rest c)))))
>
> > > user=3D> (accum + 0 [1 2 3])
> > > 6
> > > user=3D> (accum + 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
> > > 15
>
> > > This is one of the most basic, useful functions in functional
> > > programming. :)
>
> > Indeed! It's called reduce:
>
> >http://clojure.org/api#toc476
>
> > I'm shocked you haven't noticed it in the API documentation. Being =A0
> > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming. =A0
> > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.
>
> > > Here's any triangular number:
>
> > > (defn tri [n] (accum + 0 (take n (iterate inc 1))))
>
> > > Here's a lazy seq of them all:
>
> > > (def *tris* (for [i (iterate inc 1)] (tri i)))
>
> > > This, however, is more efficient (and demonstrates another case where
> > > super-lazy-seq makes something very compact and readable):
>
> > > (defn accum-map [f init coll]
> > > =A0(super-lazy-seq [x init c coll]
> > > =A0 =A0(if (seq c)
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0(next-item x (f x (first c)) (rest c)))))
>
> > > (def *tris* (rest (accum-map + 0 (iterate inc 1))))
>
> > > Notice how similar the accum-map code is to the accum code? With just
> > > lazy-seq it would not be as clear. :)
>
> > Oh? What about compared to this:
>
> > (use 'clojure.contrib.seq-utils)
>
> > (def *tris* (reductions + (iterate inc 1)))
>
> > =97
>
> The only original line of body text was:
>
> "Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll"
>
I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
taking in a conversation.
> If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
> content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
> has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
> don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
> seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
> briefly.
>
Right, which would indicate some sort of failure on the part of a
computer somewhere.
(Unless he just blocked you, which I guess is possible).
> I think this is sufficient proof of a double standard in what posts
> get deleted, and also that it is not merely that Rich allows certain
> posts by himself to stand that he wouldn't allow from others, but that
> either a special privilege extends beyond Rich to a clique of several
> people that have "licenses to be boorish" or similarly, or else that
> the double standard was not in favor of anyone, but rather was
> *against* someone -- me.
>
> > > > > Likewise, if this discussion would be better conducted elsewhere than
> > > > > c.l.l., crosspost and set followups as appropriate, though since
> > > > > clojure is a Lisp, and since the clojure Google Group is obviously not
> > > > > an option, I don't feel this post is especially mistargeted.
>
> > > > No, you can be as much of an idiot as you want on c.l.l., no
> > > > moderators here.
>
> > > I have no interest in being an idiot. I do have an interest in
> > > justice, and in warning the public about the chilly reception people
> > > receive in a particular Google Group.
>
> > There is no justice on the Internet(s).
> > :-)
>
> That is a lament, not a justification or even an excuse for what has
> happened.
>
> > > > > Thank you for your time and attention.
>
> > > > Good luck with your personal crusade against Rich Hickey!
>
> > > I have no such personal crusade. I posted merely to thwart, to the
> > > extent possible, the censorship and to warn a potentially unsuspecting
> > > public.
>
> > OK, I'm going to apologise for this. It was kind of meant to be funny
> > but didn't really come off as such.
>
> Apology accepted.
>
> > > > I hope it goes really poorly so he can write a lot of code.
>
> > > Perhaps you'd also be satisfied if he allocated that fraction of his
> > > time, apparently considerably in excess of zero, currently budgeted
> > > for slamming people unreasonably and for post-censoring to code-
> > > writing instead?
>
> > Yes, that was the point. :-)
>
> No "crusade" of mine forced him to allocate time to either personal
> attacks or post deleting. He could have simply ignored me, yet he
> chose not to. He could have chosen to respond like an adult to what I
> wrote, realizing that he was wrong in his hasty judgment of me and
> maybe apologizing for this, but he chose not to do that, either. He
> also could have chosen not to take the initial post personally.
>
> Of course, it's not too late for him to make the choice to realize his
> error and adjust his future behavior, and maybe even to apologize, but
> after several days of silence from him on the topic, I don't expect
> the latter, and don't hold out too much hope for the former, either.
>
Yeah, maybe he can appoint one of his lackys to post censoring and
google group monitoring.
> > > Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> > > directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> > > one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
> > Wait? who is the flunky? me? I have no affiliation with Rich Hickey,
> > nor am I his lackey. I don't even use Clojure.
>
> That's odd. As soon as a post appeared in here that was even mildly
> critical of Rich, you pounced on it, sparing no time to hit it within
> a few hours of its being posted. That to me suggests that either Rich
> sent you as his representative, or else you voluntarily leap to his
> defense whenever he is challenged (and even when it may not be
> appropriate, because you'd find yourself occupying the moral low
> ground).
>
Nah, I don't even know the guy.
Its possible I'm playing devils advocate and giving you a forum to
vent,
because I'm not sure you've thought all of the possibilities through.
> That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
> personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
> 'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
> to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
> nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
> with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
> car, and ego, that is.)
>
Perhaps your technique is wrong?
A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
what works.
This doesn't just apply to sex.
> > > Or maybe he can *really* man up, and apologize for the whole affair.
>
> > > It still astonishes me that what seems to have been an honest
> > > misunderstanding has blown up into this, with successive escalations
> > > by Rich and what's beginning to look like an actual honest-to-God goon
> > > squad.
>
> > It takes two to escalate an escalation.
>
> I never did escalate anything. In fact, I tried to de-escalate things
> by remaining calm and polite in my responses, whatever the
> provocation.
>
Well good then.
> Anyway, it really doesn't take two. Imagine China invaded the US, and
> the US did nothing but fight the invaders within its own borders,
> without launching any retaliation against China. Then China nuked New
> York and the US continued to only fight within its own borders.
> Clearly there's a) a fight and b) escalation going on here, and
> equally clearly, it's pretty much unilateral; China is the only
> aggressor in this hypothetical situation.
>
That's an armed conflict rather than an argument.
I agree that Rich nuked your 'borders' and nuked your 'capitol city',
it would be both vaguely erotic (although probably more of an 'ewwww'
sense)
and terribly unfair to you.
> A situation which, aside from its scale, is entirely analogous to the
> one under discussion here.
>
Aside from the whole armed conflict thing.
You juxtapose a situation in which you could have taken the 'high
road' and just not responded, with a situation in which the united
states would have faced annihiliation at the face of a violent
aggressor.
> > > To recap:
>
> > > I post saying I didn't find X which I'd expected would be there,
> > > detailing the steps of my thorough search, and I even helpfully
> > > include actual (working, tested) code to implement X, plus example
> > > code (also tested and working) using it.
>
> > > Response: derision, name-calling, abuse.
>
> > > I post honestly baffled at the responses I got, reiterating in even
> > > more detail the search I had performed and politely pointing out that
> > > the responses a) were personal attacks and b) were not appreciated. I
> > > take care not to lose my cool, and to respond calmly and rationally.
>
> > > Response: Rich rebukes the two goons that posted the most egregious
> > > flames, and they apologize.
>
> > > At this point, it looks like a simple ordinary misunderstanding of
> > > some sort, resolved quickly by a mod putting his foot down in an
> > > appropriate manner. Perhaps those two had had bad days, or simply were
> > > themselves trolls (as one of them accused me of being).
>
> > > But...
>
> > > A short time later, Rich abruptly turns right around and flames me as
> > > well, accusing me vaguely of acting in bad faith, without being very
> > > specific as to the nature of the putative bad faith, aside from
> > > supposedly not searching the documents hard enough.
>
> > > Unbelieving, I reply, again calmly and rationally, to explain exactly
> > > how thorough my search actually was and to note that I'd noticed a
> > > general undercurrent of hostility there from the moment I'd arrived,
> > > one for which there was no obvious explanation.
>
> > > The result was basically just a reiteration of the same accusation of
> > > lacking thoroughness.
>
> > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> there, and then I get told "Being
> able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> Just one!
>
I can name two:
Ghandi,
Jesus.
:-)
> > > I respond pointing out that the only possible more-thorough search I
> > > could have performed would have been to *read* the *entire* api page
> > > from top to bottom rather than grepping it. (It is 60 pages long, at
> > > 50 lines per page, and weighs in at approximately 200KB.)
>
> > > He deletes the response.
>
> > > Repeat a few times, and then here we are.
>
> > > Point to one single action of mine in the above sequence that wasn't,
> > > if anything, better than how you would have reacted had the same thing
> > > happened to you.
>
> > Deleting the response to quell further discussion of the topic seems
> > reasonable.
>
> NO, IT DOESN'T.
>
> > It at least would have saved you discussion of the ways in
> > which you lack thoroughness.
>
> What, all zero of them? HOW many TIMES will I have to REPEAT the
> detailed description of my very thorough search before people start
> believing that I actually performed a very thorough search?
>
Synonyms, tutorials, asking in #clojure... google search.
If you search this document:
http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html#Sequences
For fold, you find the reduce function. I believe it is linked off the
clojure site as a good tutorial, as well as being the first hit for
'foldl in clojure' on google.
I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
> Note that the current documentation for "reduce" says: (quoting in
> case the web site ever changes)
>
> (reduce f coll)
> (reduce f val coll)
> f should be a function of 2 arguments. If val is not supplied, returns
> the result of applying f to the first 2 items in coll, then applying f
> to that result and the 3rd item, etc. If coll contains no items, f
> must accept no arguments as well, and reduce returns the result of
> calling f with no arguments. If coll has only 1 item, it is returned
> and f is not called. If val is supplied, returns the result of
> applying f to val and the first item in coll, then applying f to that
> result and the 2nd item, etc. If coll contains no items, returns val
> and f is not called.
>
> Note the absence of "seq" anywhere in there, surprisingly for a
> sequence-oriented function. It's probably the only function not
> specialized for vectors, maps, or sets for which a search for "seq"
> draws a blank.
>
> It's pure accident. Not my fault that my search didn't find it. Not
> anyone else's fault either, though now that it's been noticed,
> rewording the text to mention "seq" somewhere might be a good idea.
>
> Perhaps you think I should have searched for "coll" instead, or known
> the name "reduce". But hindsight is always 20/20. I was thinking in
> terms of sequences, and in terms of integer, rather than boolean or
> collection, results, at the time. So sue me.
>
I don't debate your search was reasonable.
> > Now I'm sure you won't be satisified until we have detailed every
> > possible way in which you were not thorough. :-P
>
> Since there were zero (short of searching for every synonym I could
> think up and/or reading the whole api page from top to bottom over a
> period of several full hours), we've already (vacuously) done so.
>
> > > Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> > > goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> > > Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> > > explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> > > watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> > > flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> > > and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> > > clinches it.
>
> > I am not in Rich Hickeys goon.
>
> Fine. Regardless, I don't think you've done a very good job of
> defending him. The closest you've come is to claim deleting my post
> was "reasonable", have that claim solidly debunked, and then merely
> reiterate it, and to suggest that it's perfectly OK for him to apply a
> double standard(!). After that latter, if I were Rich and you were my
> goon you'd be fired and another goon found to replace you. :)
>
Not really trying to defend him.
Probably would have been better for him to have just ignored your post
entirely.
(If he did delete it).
Its not 'OK' to apply a double standard, its reasonable.
Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
Is it 'OK'? I have no idea!
Is it reasonable? maybe.
Proof I'm not a goon!
> > I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> > :-P
>
> Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
> 6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
> along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
> able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
> development environment that supports developing your code and testing
> it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
> so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
> it, won't hang NB.)
>
Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
> > The persecution act does not make you more credible. :-)
>
> Are you calling me a liar?
>
No I'm meant to say it doesn't add anything to your argument that the
documentation needs to be improved. Credible was a bad word for it.
> I have provided some evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> any evidence posted that supports your side.
>
> I think the survival of the above-cited "WrexTroll" post long after
> the deletions of my previously-cited much-more-topical-and-
> constructive ones is pretty damning. You will have to try very hard to
> come up with any defense that could plausibly succeed in the face of
> that bit of evidence favoring my interpretations and judgments.
When faced with such tasks I find that I generally opt to throw my
hands up in the air and do something else. :-)
Although similarly I wouldn't hold my breath for a response from the
accused if I were you.
Not really in anyone's best interests for him to.
On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:33 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:> On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
>
> > > Are you accusing me of not being thorough? You expect me to read the /
> > > entire/ post? that's ridiculous.
>
> > I read yours. Mine was only five or so pages long, not some ludicrous
> > rantfest like you sometimes see. Nothing ridiculous about expecting
> > you to at least have skimmed it, and read particularly relevant
> > passages, including the bit where I described just how thoroughly I
> > had searched.
>
> No, I did skim it, I just didn't read it thoroughly and backtrack
> through the clojure google group. It was more an admission of my own
> lack of thoroughness.
OK. It seemed a bit snarky to me.
> > > > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > > > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > > > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > > > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > > > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > > > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > > So you did or didn't find reduce?
>
> > Didn't.
>
> So maybe its an error in technique rather than thoroughness?
You seem very determined to find some way to pin the blame on me. Why
can't you just accept that it was an accident stemming from the
unlikely occurrence of a seq-related function whose documentation
doesn't mention "seq"?
> > > Another thing I do when search documentation is I look for synonyms,
> > > because, you know, they're synonymous.
>
> > The synonyms I knew of were "accumulate" and "fold".
>
> Yeah, I think it might be a culture difference, I mean, in CL docs it
> is called reduce.
>
> It is interesting that reduce is in the 'create a collection' and
> 'create a boolean' sections, but it doesn't necessarily create a
> collection or a boolean. :-)
Yes, that's a second spot where I could have found it in the
documentation, had something been a bit different in the
documentation. If it had mentioned "accumulate a product or a sum, or
otherwise reduce a collection or sequence to a value" then I'd have
found it.
> But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
> > > For example had you gone to wikipedia and looked up 'fold'
>
> > I wasn't searching wikipedia. I was searching the clojure API docs.
>
> You didn't find it in the api docs
If I didn't find it in the api docs, I was not likely to find it at
some other website entirely.
> You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
> > > You didn't find a documented function that has a reasonable name with
> > > exactly the same functionality as you wanted.
>
> > But not for lack of thoroughness. It seems that for some reason the
> > documentation of this function completely fails to mention "seq"
> > anywhere in it. This is a problem. The primary interface most people
> > will have to the documentation is search, NOT reading the whole thing
> > from start to finish like it was a novel. Whether you agree that's how
> > it SHOULD be or not, that's how it IS, and it is therefore a bug if a
> > particular bit of documentation is written in such a manner as to be
> > missed by a likely relevant search.
>
> Well really, I more skim the definitions and relate them to constructs
> in other languages that I already know.
Well, that's just you. Most people grep rather than skim.
> > > Possibly, but he is a moderator (there is an inherent double
> > > standard)
>
> > There is not an inherent double standard. He should play by the same
> > rules as everyone else, even if he happens to be the one also
> > enforcing them. He blatantly did NOT play by the same rules as
> > everyone else.
>
> Well, he makes the rules, and being that he is human, it is hard to be
> fully unbiased about such things.
Nonetheless, it is his responsibility to try.
> I mean, think of it this way, if he
> had rebuked the flames and told you to be a bit more thorough next
> time, you could have just left it at that (whether or not you believe
> that you were not thorough).
What, and give the impression that I didn't disagree with his
assessment of my thoroughness? I was fairly sure he hadn't bothered to
read carefully what I'd written, particularly my description of how
thoroughly I had in fact searched.
He also implied that there was some sort of bad-faith behavior on my
part, saying I'd "gotten a poor start" or similar. This was a vague
accusation of having done something wrong, persistently, and obviously
required clarification. He neglected to ever actually clarify it.
> > The concept is called "rule of law" and there's a reason why almost
> > all of the more socially and economically advanced nations have it as
> > a guiding principle.
>
> Ideally the law is applied even-handedly, but this is rarely the
> case.
> (Because people are human and inherently biased).
That's not a justification for what happened. It's barely even an
excuse. I won't accept it as one.
> > I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
> > THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
>
> I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> group.
> But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
rights in a real criminal court:
"I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
and executioner."
But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
compared to the alternative.
> Right, but the accusation on the Google group that you were not
> thorough is a trivial one.
To you.
> > It is unreasonable for two reasons:
>
> > 1. Since it was partly about the Clojure docs, it was not off-topic,
> > and by no stretch of the imagination was it spam or otherwise
> > abusive.
> > 2. Under any conceivable rule, based solely on content, under which
> > it would be classified as abusive/spam/otherwise objectionable,
> > the post by Rich Hickey to which it was a response would be
> > classified identically, yet the latter was not treated the same.
> > Therefore, the rule actually employed to determine what to
> > delete involved other factors, perhaps authorship, that are
> > irrelevant to the question of whether content is acceptable or
> > not. In other words, either I was singled out for special
> > bad treatment (unreasonable!) or Rich elevates himself to
> > special status (a double standard!).
>
> Didn't I just say there's an inherent double standard in moderator-
> ship?
>
> You post a jab at rich, he deletes it... not shocking.
I did not post a jab at Rich. Read the first post of this thread. It
contains the entirety of the post that was deleted.
> > > > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > > > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > > > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > > > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > > > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > > > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > > > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > > > kind.
>
> > > Was it on topic or was it political?
>
> > It was both.
>
> Would it make the political part off topic?
Not when it's internal politics of the group.
> > > At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> > > malicious is conjecture.
>
> > So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
> > deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
> > any such deletion was malicious.
>
> Well you have bias too.
No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
things better.
> You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> malice.
Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
> > Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
> > guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
> > does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
> > attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
> > didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
>
> Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> anyway?
I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
"stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
the docs rather than the feature-set.)
> > > I suspect he was trying to avoid a thread like this one on the clojure
> > > google group.
>
> > He could have avoided that very easily, either by a) not attacking me
> > after his two posts rebuking the other two for posting personal
> > attacks, or b) attacking me, allowing my post defending myself to
> > stand, and not posting any further attacks.
>
> > He didn't choose to do either. Instead, he attacked me, when I
> > defended myself he attacked me again, and when I defended myself again
> > he muzzled me. Hardly an honourable way to "win" an argument. In fact,
> > I call it cheating, not winning.
>
> Your thoroughness is subjective and as such a debate of it isn't
> winnable.
My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
The only thing subjective here is not how thorough I was, but how
thorough people feel I should have been.
It's similar to temperature. It is 70 degrees. This is an objective
fact. Whether some people feel that's cool and others feel that's warm
can be subjective, but not the actual temperature. Ditto my
thoroughness.
And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
*read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
> > > > I disagree.
>
> > > Well you aren't exactly an unbiased party in the matter.
>
> > On the contrary, I'm quite capable of being dispassionate about such
> > things. I pointed out objective facts, such as that the post was
> > (partly) about Clojure's documentation, to support a contention that
> > it was not off-topic.
>
> > Furthermore, need I remind you that a far more unconstructive personal
> > attack was allowed to stand undeleted:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/ff6d7945f730c71f?dmode=source
>
> > I quote it below, because, as incriminating evidence, it might be
> > subjected to deletion after this post of mine goes to the presses:
>
> But don't you want it deleted?
No. I'm not very fond of censorship, even of obvious rudeness and
stupidity like that. Let it sit there embarrassing Sean Devlin, along
with the rebuke he got for posting it, and the apology he posted
subsequently. Especially since it's evidence of a deletion double-
standard.
> Seems like a catch-22 now...
> It gets 'moderated' and he's hiding incriminating evidence, it doesn't
> get moderated, he's allowing an egregiously offensive post to stay
> posted.
It gets "moderated", or not, while my own posts get reinstated: he's
seen the error of his ways and repented of his sins.
It's only a catch-22 if there is *no* way out.
> > The only original line of body text was:
>
> > "Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll"
>
> I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> taking in a conversation.
There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
my post.
Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
> > If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
> > content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
> > has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
> > don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
> > seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
> > briefly.
>
> Right, which would indicate some sort of failure on the part of a
> computer somewhere.
> (Unless he just blocked you, which I guess is possible).
Which I guess is a near-certainty, given that during the period of the
"outage" ONLY MY POSTS were affected -- plenty of others got posted
normally.
> > No "crusade" of mine forced him to allocate time to either personal
> > attacks or post deleting. He could have simply ignored me, yet he
> > chose not to. He could have chosen to respond like an adult to what I
> > wrote, realizing that he was wrong in his hasty judgment of me and
> > maybe apologizing for this, but he chose not to do that, either. He
> > also could have chosen not to take the initial post personally.
>
> > Of course, it's not too late for him to make the choice to realize his
> > error and adjust his future behavior, and maybe even to apologize, but
> > after several days of silence from him on the topic, I don't expect
> > the latter, and don't hold out too much hope for the former, either.
>
> Yeah, maybe he can appoint one of his lackys to post censoring and
> google group monitoring.
A job that doesn't need doing? Well, unless the group gets the
occasional spam or genuine troll.
> > > > Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> > > > directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> > > > one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
> > > Wait? who is the flunky? me? I have no affiliation with Rich Hickey,
> > > nor am I his lackey. I don't even use Clojure.
>
> > That's odd. As soon as a post appeared in here that was even mildly
> > critical of Rich, you pounced on it, sparing no time to hit it within
> > a few hours of its being posted. That to me suggests that either Rich
> > sent you as his representative, or else you voluntarily leap to his
> > defense whenever he is challenged (and even when it may not be
> > appropriate, because you'd find yourself occupying the moral low
> > ground).
>
> Nah, I don't even know the guy.
> Its possible I'm playing devils advocate and giving you a forum to
> vent,
> because I'm not sure you've thought all of the possibilities through.
As you've probably begun to realize, I'm quite thorough, even if few
seem to give me credit for it.
> > That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
> > personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
> > 'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
> > to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
> > nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
> > with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
> > car, and ego, that is.)
>
> Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> what works.
Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
Code is my passion.
> This doesn't just apply to sex.
You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
> > Anyway, it really doesn't take two. Imagine China invaded the US, and
> > the US did nothing but fight the invaders within its own borders,
> > without launching any retaliation against China. Then China nuked New
> > York and the US continued to only fight within its own borders.
> > Clearly there's a) a fight and b) escalation going on here, and
> > equally clearly, it's pretty much unilateral; China is the only
> > aggressor in this hypothetical situation.
>
> That's an armed conflict rather than an argument.
> I agree that Rich nuked your 'borders' and nuked your 'capitol city',
> it would be both vaguely erotic (although probably more of an 'ewwww'
> sense)
> and terribly unfair to you.
I don't swing that way, sorry.
> > A situation which, aside from its scale, is entirely analogous to the
> > one under discussion here.
>
> Aside from the whole armed conflict thing.
> You juxtapose a situation in which you could have taken the 'high
> road' and just not responded, with a situation in which the united
> states would have faced annihiliation at the face of a violent
> aggressor.
Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
"Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
> > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > there, and then I get told "Being
> > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > Just one!
>
> I can name two:
>
> Ghandi,
> Jesus.
>
> :-)
Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
> > > It at least would have saved you discussion of the ways in
> > > which you lack thoroughness.
>
> > What, all zero of them? HOW many TIMES will I have to REPEAT the
> > detailed description of my very thorough search before people start
> > believing that I actually performed a very thorough search?
>
> Synonyms, tutorials, asking in #clojure... google search.
The api documentation should be self-sufficient. If it relies on users
doing other stuff, then it still has a bug and my point stands.
> Synonyms,
I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
> tutorials,
Didn't know of one.
> asking in #clojure...
If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
> google search.
For what? The only google search to occur to me is "accum", "fold", or
failing those "seq" "site:clojure.org". Which has identical results to
the in-Firefox searches I performed, only with the need to click links
to go to each result instead of just hit F3. Ugh, yuck, no thanks.
> If you search this document:
>
> http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html#Sequences
>
> For fold, you find the reduce function.
So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
reasonable-standards.
> I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
> > Note the absence of "seq" anywhere in there, surprisingly for a
> > sequence-oriented function. It's probably the only function not
> > specialized for vectors, maps, or sets for which a search for "seq"
> > draws a blank.
>
> > It's pure accident. Not my fault that my search didn't find it. Not
> > anyone else's fault either, though now that it's been noticed,
> > rewording the text to mention "seq" somewhere might be a good idea.
>
> > Perhaps you think I should have searched for "coll" instead, or known
> > the name "reduce". But hindsight is always 20/20. I was thinking in
> > terms of sequences, and in terms of integer, rather than boolean or
> > collection, results, at the time. So sue me.
>
> I don't debate your search was reasonable.
Ah. Well, that settles it, then.
If only Rich could come around to the same realization.
> > > > Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> > > > goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> > > > Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> > > > explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> > > > watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> > > > flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> > > > and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> > > > clinches it.
>
> > > I am not in Rich Hickeys goon.
>
> > Fine. Regardless, I don't think you've done a very good job of
> > defending him. The closest you've come is to claim deleting my post
> > was "reasonable", have that claim solidly debunked, and then merely
> > reiterate it, and to suggest that it's perfectly OK for him to apply a
> > double standard(!). After that latter, if I were Rich and you were my
> > goon you'd be fired and another goon found to replace you. :)
>
> Not really trying to defend him.
> Probably would have been better for him to have just ignored your post
> entirely.
> (If he did delete it).
It definitely would have been. It would have been better still if he'd
engaged with me and allowed whatever misunderstanding was fueling the
acrimony to be cleared up. In my experience, not getting to the root
of a dispute like that results in it festering.
> Its not 'OK' to apply a double standard, its reasonable.
It's neither.
> Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
> Is it 'OK'? I have no idea!
> Is it reasonable? maybe.
>
> Proof I'm not a goon!
I don't know about that.
Furthermore, if Rich's muzzling people that disagree with him is to be
analogized with cops behaving differently from regular citizens, it's
closer to the Rodney King beating than having a permit to carry, IMO.
> > > I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> > > :-P
>
> > Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
> > 6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
> > along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
> > able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
> > development environment that supports developing your code and testing
> > it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
> > so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
> > it, won't hang NB.)
>
> Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
line or wherever.
> > > The persecution act does not make you more credible. :-)
>
> > Are you calling me a liar?
>
> No I'm meant to say it doesn't add anything to your argument that the
> documentation needs to be improved. Credible was a bad word for it.
Perhaps because I'm arguing multiple things, and my arguments in favor
of any one of those things will tend to be irrelevant to the others.
> > I think the survival of the above-cited "WrexTroll" post long after
> > the deletions of my previously-cited much-more-topical-and-
> > constructive ones is pretty damning. You will have to try very hard to
> > come up with any defense that could plausibly succeed in the face of
> > that bit of evidence favoring my interpretations and judgments.
>
> When faced with such tasks I find that I generally opt to throw my
> hands up in the air and do something else. :-)
A wise choice.
> Although similarly I wouldn't hold my breath for a response from the
> accused if I were you.
>
> Not really in anyone's best interests for him to.
His own? His credibility to be a good maintainer would be improved if
he demonstrated that, while he occasionally suffered lapses in
judgment and took bug reports/similarly personally that he shouldn't
have, he was also able to recover from those lapses and, after a few
days to cool down, was able to do the right thing.
On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:33 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:> On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Did you read my post? (I have kept the relevant parts quoted above.)
>
> > > > Are you accusing me of not being thorough? You expect me to read the /
> > > > entire/ post? that's ridiculous.
>
> > > I read yours. Mine was only five or so pages long, not some ludicrous
> > > rantfest like you sometimes see. Nothing ridiculous about expecting
> > > you to at least have skimmed it, and read particularly relevant
> > > passages, including the bit where I described just how thoroughly I
> > > had searched.
>
> > No, I did skim it, I just didn't read it thoroughly and backtrack
> > through the clojure google group. It was more an admission of my own
> > lack of thoroughness.
>
> OK. It seemed a bit snarky to me.
>
It probably was. I got my snarkometer stuck in snarkth gear lately.
> > > > > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > > > > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > > > > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > > > > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > > > > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > > > > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > > > So you did or didn't find reduce?
>
> > > Didn't.
>
> > So maybe its an error in technique rather than thoroughness?
>
> You seem very determined to find some way to pin the blame on me. Why
> can't you just accept that it was an accident stemming from the
> unlikely occurrence of a seq-related function whose documentation
> doesn't mention "seq"?
>
The alternative would be agreeing with you.
> > > > Another thing I do when search documentation is I look for synonyms,
> > > > because, you know, they're synonymous.
>
> > > The synonyms I knew of were "accumulate" and "fold".
>
> > Yeah, I think it might be a culture difference, I mean, in CL docs it
> > is called reduce.
>
> > It is interesting that reduce is in the 'create a collection' and
> > 'create a boolean' sections, but it doesn't necessarily create a
> > collection or a boolean. :-)
>
> Yes, that's a second spot where I could have found it in the
> documentation, had something been a bit different in the
> documentation. If it had mentioned "accumulate a product or a sum, or
> otherwise reduce a collection or sequence to a value" then I'd have
> found it.
>
yeah
> > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
search for this sort of thing in the future.
> > > > For example had you gone to wikipedia and looked up 'fold'
>
> > > I wasn't searching wikipedia. I was searching the clojure API docs.
>
> > You didn't find it in the api docs
>
> If I didn't find it in the api docs, I was not likely to find it at
> some other website entirely.
>
> > You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
>
> Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
> doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
>
It terminates when you run out of synonyms.
> > > > You didn't find a documented function that has a reasonable name with
> > > > exactly the same functionality as you wanted.
>
> > > But not for lack of thoroughness. It seems that for some reason the
> > > documentation of this function completely fails to mention "seq"
> > > anywhere in it. This is a problem. The primary interface most people
> > > will have to the documentation is search, NOT reading the whole thing
> > > from start to finish like it was a novel. Whether you agree that's how
> > > it SHOULD be or not, that's how it IS, and it is therefore a bug if a
> > > particular bit of documentation is written in such a manner as to be
> > > missed by a likely relevant search.
>
> > Well really, I more skim the definitions and relate them to constructs
> > in other languages that I already know.
>
> Well, that's just you. Most people grep rather than skim.
>
True, I read fairly fast.
> > > > Possibly, but he is a moderator (there is an inherent double
> > > > standard)
>
> > > There is not an inherent double standard. He should play by the same
> > > rules as everyone else, even if he happens to be the one also
> > > enforcing them. He blatantly did NOT play by the same rules as
> > > everyone else.
>
> > Well, he makes the rules, and being that he is human, it is hard to be
> > fully unbiased about such things.
>
> Nonetheless, it is his responsibility to try.
>
I don't disagree.
> > I mean, think of it this way, if he
> > had rebuked the flames and told you to be a bit more thorough next
> > time, you could have just left it at that (whether or not you believe
> > that you were not thorough).
>
> What, and give the impression that I didn't disagree with his
> assessment of my thoroughness? I was fairly sure he hadn't bothered to
> read carefully what I'd written, particularly my description of how
> thoroughly I had in fact searched.
>
> He also implied that there was some sort of bad-faith behavior on my
> part, saying I'd "gotten a poor start" or similar. This was a vague
> accusation of having done something wrong, persistently, and obviously
> required clarification. He neglected to ever actually clarify it.
>
> > > The concept is called "rule of law" and there's a reason why almost
> > > all of the more socially and economically advanced nations have it as
> > > a guiding principle.
>
> > Ideally the law is applied even-handedly, but this is rarely the
> > case.
> > (Because people are human and inherently biased).
>
> That's not a justification for what happened. It's barely even an
> excuse. I won't accept it as one.
>
> > > I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
> > > THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
>
> > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > group.
> > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> rights in a real criminal court:
>
> "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> and executioner."
>
Is it not? granted the US gov'ment encompasses the entire people of
the united states (jury and trial by peers).
unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
> But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> compared to the alternative.
>
Can I be president of the internets then?
> > Right, but the accusation on the Google group that you were not
> > thorough is a trivial one.
>
> To you.
>
I can't possibly be the only one.
> > > It is unreasonable for two reasons:
>
> > > 1. Since it was partly about the Clojure docs, it was not off-topic,
> > > and by no stretch of the imagination was it spam or otherwise
> > > abusive.
> > > 2. Under any conceivable rule, based solely on content, under which
> > > it would be classified as abusive/spam/otherwise objectionable,
> > > the post by Rich Hickey to which it was a response would be
> > > classified identically, yet the latter was not treated the same.
> > > Therefore, the rule actually employed to determine what to
> > > delete involved other factors, perhaps authorship, that are
> > > irrelevant to the question of whether content is acceptable or
> > > not. In other words, either I was singled out for special
> > > bad treatment (unreasonable!) or Rich elevates himself to
> > > special status (a double standard!).
>
> > Didn't I just say there's an inherent double standard in moderator-
> > ship?
>
> > You post a jab at rich, he deletes it... not shocking.
>
> I did not post a jab at Rich. Read the first post of this thread. It
> contains the entirety of the post that was deleted.
>
> > > > > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > > > > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > > > > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > > > > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > > > > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > > > > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > > > > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > > > > kind.
>
> > > > Was it on topic or was it political?
>
> > > It was both.
>
> > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
> > > > At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> > > > malicious is conjecture.
>
> > > So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
> > > deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
> > > any such deletion was malicious.
>
> > Well you have bias too.
>
> No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> things better.
>
1.) everyone is biased.
2.) you have nothing to back up whether it is malicious or good
intentioned.
It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
> > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > malice.
>
> Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
> > > Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
> > > guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
> > > does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
> > > attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
> > > didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
>
> > Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> > anyway?
>
> I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
> doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
> quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
> still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
> see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
> it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
> "stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
> shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
> the docs rather than the feature-set.)
>
Being a Dev is a fine balance of hubris and humility.
> > > > I suspect he was trying to avoid a thread like this one on the clojure
> > > > google group.
>
> > > He could have avoided that very easily, either by a) not attacking me
> > > after his two posts rebuking the other two for posting personal
> > > attacks, or b) attacking me, allowing my post defending myself to
> > > stand, and not posting any further attacks.
>
> > > He didn't choose to do either. Instead, he attacked me, when I
> > > defended myself he attacked me again, and when I defended myself again
> > > he muzzled me. Hardly an honourable way to "win" an argument. In fact,
> > > I call it cheating, not winning.
>
> > Your thoroughness is subjective and as such a debate of it isn't
> > winnable.
>
> My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
Ok, But you didn't check any external sources and reduce is a fairly
common name for foldl, (possibly a more common name for foldl).
> The only thing subjective here is not how thorough I was, but how
> thorough people feel I should have been.
>
> It's similar to temperature. It is 70 degrees. This is an objective
> fact. Whether some people feel that's cool and others feel that's warm
> can be subjective, but not the actual temperature. Ditto my
> thoroughness.
>
So some people think you were not thorough and some people think you
are thorough.
Gotcha.
Like rich, he thinks you are not thorough. You think you are
thorough.
I think you are thorough in completely the wrong way. subjective.
> And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
seq functions.
> > > > > I disagree.
>
> > > > Well you aren't exactly an unbiased party in the matter.
>
> > > On the contrary, I'm quite capable of being dispassionate about such
> > > things. I pointed out objective facts, such as that the post was
> > > (partly) about Clojure's documentation, to support a contention that
> > > it was not off-topic.
>
> > > Furthermore, need I remind you that a far more unconstructive personal
> > > attack was allowed to stand undeleted:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/ff6d7945f730c71f?dmode=source
>
> > > I quote it below, because, as incriminating evidence, it might be
> > > subjected to deletion after this post of mine goes to the presses:
>
> > But don't you want it deleted?
>
> No. I'm not very fond of censorship, even of obvious rudeness and
> stupidity like that. Let it sit there embarrassing Sean Devlin, along
> with the rebuke he got for posting it, and the apology he posted
> subsequently. Especially since it's evidence of a deletion double-
> standard.
>
I agree, censorship is evil.
> > Seems like a catch-22 now...
> > It gets 'moderated' and he's hiding incriminating evidence, it doesn't
> > get moderated, he's allowing an egregiously offensive post to stay
> > posted.
>
> It gets "moderated", or not, while my own posts get reinstated: he's
> seen the error of his ways and repented of his sins.
>
Sins against wrex?
> It's only a catch-22 if there is *no* way out.
>
> > > The only original line of body text was:
>
> > > "Daniel, don't feed the WrexTroll"
>
> > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > taking in a conversation.
>
> There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> my post.
>
> Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
Tone is an inherent part of language.
Earlier you said my post sounded snarky.
That is tone.
I think long posts on this matter make you seem at least a little
wound up about it.
> > > If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
> > > content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
> > > has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
> > > don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
> > > seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
> > > briefly.
>
> > Right, which would indicate some sort of failure on the part of a
> > computer somewhere.
> > (Unless he just blocked you, which I guess is possible).
>
> Which I guess is a near-certainty, given that during the period of the
> "outage" ONLY MY POSTS were affected -- plenty of others got posted
> normally.
>
I guess, can you post it now??
> > > No "crusade" of mine forced him to allocate time to either personal
> > > attacks or post deleting. He could have simply ignored me, yet he
> > > chose not to. He could have chosen to respond like an adult to what I
> > > wrote, realizing that he was wrong in his hasty judgment of me and
> > > maybe apologizing for this, but he chose not to do that, either. He
> > > also could have chosen not to take the initial post personally.
>
> > > Of course, it's not too late for him to make the choice to realize his
> > > error and adjust his future behavior, and maybe even to apologize, but
> > > after several days of silence from him on the topic, I don't expect
> > > the latter, and don't hold out too much hope for the former, either.
>
> > Yeah, maybe he can appoint one of his lackys to post censoring and
> > google group monitoring.
>
> A job that doesn't need doing? Well, unless the group gets the
> occasional spam or genuine troll.
>
> > > > > Failing that, perhaps he cares to face me like a man and reply
> > > > > directly to my latest "challenge to his authority", instead of sending
> > > > > one of his flunkies to do the dirty work for him?
>
> > > > Wait? who is the flunky? me? I have no affiliation with Rich Hickey,
> > > > nor am I his lackey. I don't even use Clojure.
>
> > > That's odd. As soon as a post appeared in here that was even mildly
> > > critical of Rich, you pounced on it, sparing no time to hit it within
> > > a few hours of its being posted. That to me suggests that either Rich
> > > sent you as his representative, or else you voluntarily leap to his
> > > defense whenever he is challenged (and even when it may not be
> > > appropriate, because you'd find yourself occupying the moral low
> > > ground).
>
> > Nah, I don't even know the guy.
> > Its possible I'm playing devils advocate and giving you a forum to
> > vent,
> > because I'm not sure you've thought all of the possibilities through.
>
> As you've probably begun to realize, I'm quite thorough, even if few
> seem to give me credit for it.
>
> > > That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
> > > personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
> > > 'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
> > > to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
> > > nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
> > > with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
> > > car, and ego, that is.)
>
> > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > what works.
>
> Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> Code is my passion.
>
Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
way.
(i.e. technique is wrong).
> > This doesn't just apply to sex.
>
> You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
> with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
>
you can have sex with groupies.
> > > Anyway, it really doesn't take two. Imagine China invaded the US, and
> > > the US did nothing but fight the invaders within its own borders,
> > > without launching any retaliation against China. Then China nuked New
> > > York and the US continued to only fight within its own borders.
> > > Clearly there's a) a fight and b) escalation going on here, and
> > > equally clearly, it's pretty much unilateral; China is the only
> > > aggressor in this hypothetical situation.
>
> > That's an armed conflict rather than an argument.
> > I agree that Rich nuked your 'borders' and nuked your 'capitol city',
> > it would be both vaguely erotic (although probably more of an 'ewwww'
> > sense)
> > and terribly unfair to you.
>
> I don't swing that way, sorry.
>
> > > A situation which, aside from its scale, is entirely analogous to the
> > > one under discussion here.
>
> > Aside from the whole armed conflict thing.
> > You juxtapose a situation in which you could have taken the 'high
> > road' and just not responded, with a situation in which the united
> > states would have faced annihiliation at the face of a violent
> > aggressor.
>
> Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
> the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
> "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
>
You know what they say, go big or go home.
> > > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > > there, and then I get told "Being
> > > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > > Just one!
>
> > I can name two:
>
> > Ghandi,
> > Jesus.
>
> > :-)
>
> Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
> other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
>
Its not like I named Gandalf and Hiro Protagonist.
> > > > It at least would have saved you discussion of the ways in
> > > > which you lack thoroughness.
>
> > > What, all zero of them? HOW many TIMES will I have to REPEAT the
> > > detailed description of my very thorough search before people start
> > > believing that I actually performed a very thorough search?
>
> > Synonyms, tutorials, asking in #clojure... google search.
>
> The api documentation should be self-sufficient. If it relies on users
> doing other stuff, then it still has a bug and my point stands.
>
> > Synonyms,
>
> I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
> synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
>
you can with a thesaurus
> > tutorials,
>
> Didn't know of one.
>
There's dozens on the clojure website.
> > asking in #clojure...
>
> If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
> software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
> holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
> exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
> more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
> anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
>
I stay as far away from windows as possible lately.
> > google search.
>
> For what? The only google search to occur to me is "accum", "fold", or
> failing those "seq" "site:clojure.org". Which has identical results to
> the in-Firefox searches I performed, only with the need to click links
> to go to each result instead of just hit F3. Ugh, yuck, no thanks.
>
> > If you search this document:
>
> >http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html#Sequences
>
> > For fold, you find the reduce function.
>
> So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
> site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
> links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
> STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
> stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
> reasonable-standards.
>
Its a better document than the API.
> > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
Then that's good.
> > > Note the absence of "seq" anywhere in there, surprisingly for a
> > > sequence-oriented function. It's probably the only function not
> > > specialized for vectors, maps, or sets for which a search for "seq"
> > > draws a blank.
>
> > > It's pure accident. Not my fault that my search didn't find it. Not
> > > anyone else's fault either, though now that it's been noticed,
> > > rewording the text to mention "seq" somewhere might be a good idea.
>
> > > Perhaps you think I should have searched for "coll" instead, or known
> > > the name "reduce". But hindsight is always 20/20. I was thinking in
> > > terms of sequences, and in terms of integer, rather than boolean or
> > > collection, results, at the time. So sue me.
>
> > I don't debate your search was reasonable.
>
> Ah. Well, that settles it, then.
>
> If only Rich could come around to the same realization.
>
:-)
I'm sure the API docs will get updated eventually.
> > > > > Point to one single action of Rich's, other than rebuking the two
> > > > > goons that one time, that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> > > > > Or better yet, don't bother replying and let Rich come here and
> > > > > explain himself, maybe even apologize if he's man enough. I know he
> > > > > watches this group. The appearance of one of his goon squad here to
> > > > > flame me very quickly after my first post here strongly suggests it,
> > > > > and I saw his name in the other recent clojure thread in cll, which
> > > > > clinches it.
>
> > > > I am not in Rich Hickeys goon.
>
> > > Fine. Regardless, I don't think you've done a very good job of
> > > defending him. The closest you've come is to claim deleting my post
> > > was "reasonable", have that claim solidly debunked, and then merely
> > > reiterate it, and to suggest that it's perfectly OK for him to apply a
> > > double standard(!). After that latter, if I were Rich and you were my
> > > goon you'd be fired and another goon found to replace you. :)
>
> > Not really trying to defend him.
> > Probably would have been better for him to have just ignored your post
> > entirely.
> > (If he did delete it).
>
> It definitely would have been. It would have been better still if he'd
> engaged with me and allowed whatever misunderstanding was fueling the
> acrimony to be cleared up. In my experience, not getting to the root
> of a dispute like that results in it festering.
>
> > Its not 'OK' to apply a double standard, its reasonable.
>
> It's neither.
>
> > Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
>
> Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
> SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
> hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
> cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
>
No I think they are the little ones. M4s or something.
(maybe not assault rifles but carbines?)
> > Is it 'OK'? I have no idea!
> > Is it reasonable? maybe.
>
> > Proof I'm not a goon!
>
> I don't know about that.
>
> Furthermore, if Rich's muzzling people that disagree with him is to be
> analogized with cops behaving differently from regular citizens, it's
> closer to the Rodney King beating than having a permit to carry, IMO.
>
> > > > I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> > > > :-P
>
> > > Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
> > > 6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
> > > along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
> > > able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
> > > development environment that supports developing your code and testing
> > > it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
> > > so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
> > > it, won't hang NB.)
>
> > Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> > I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> > emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
>
> Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
> emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
> install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
> line or wherever.
>
I just installed it with eclispe and clojure-dev.
Have a little toy project running now.
Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
> > > > The persecution act does not make you more credible. :-)
>
> > > Are you calling me a liar?
>
> > No I'm meant to say it doesn't add anything to your argument that the
> > documentation needs to be improved. Credible was a bad word for it.
>
> Perhaps because I'm arguing multiple things, and my arguments in favor
> of any one of those things will tend to be irrelevant to the others.
>
Yeah, it gets confusing for me too.
> > > I think the survival of the above-cited "WrexTroll" post long after
> > > the deletions of my previously-cited much-more-topical-and-
> > > constructive ones is pretty damning. You will have to try very hard to
> > > come up with any defense that could plausibly succeed in the face of
> > > that bit of evidence favoring my interpretations and judgments.
>
> > When faced with such tasks I find that I generally opt to throw my
> > hands up in the air and do something else. :-)
>
> A wise choice.
>
> > Although similarly I wouldn't hold my breath for a response from the
> > accused if I were you.
>
> > Not really in anyone's best interests for him to.
>
> His own? His credibility to be a good maintainer would be improved if
> he demonstrated that, while he occasionally suffered lapses in
> judgment and took bug reports/similarly personally that he shouldn't
> have, he was also able to recover from those lapses and, after a few
> days to cool down, was able to do the right thing.
I get the impression that you guys just might not be convivial
personalities.
On Jun 20, 5:38 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 12:33 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > > > > > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > > > > > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > > > > > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > > > > > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > > > > > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > > > > So you did or didn't find reduce?
>
> > > > Didn't.
>
> > > So maybe its an error in technique rather than thoroughness?
>
> > You seem very determined to find some way to pin the blame on me. Why
> > can't you just accept that it was an accident stemming from the
> > unlikely occurrence of a seq-related function whose documentation
> > doesn't mention "seq"?
>
> The alternative would be agreeing with you.
Is that so bad?
> > > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> > The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
> Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
> search for this sort of thing in the future.
While missing the point: I shouldn't have to search any site other
than clojure.org.
> > > You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
>
> > Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
> > doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
>
> It terminates when you run out of synonyms.
That might take years in some cases.
Don't be ridiculous. There has to be *some* point that's considered
"diligent enough". I'd say that by the 30-minute mark (if you spent
that time actively searching rather than munching donuts) that point
has already been passed.
> > > > I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
> > > > THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
>
> > > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > > group.
> > > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> > Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> > rights in a real criminal court:
>
> > "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> > somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> > and executioner."
>
> Is it not?
It's not the jury, no, and then there's the three branches and
separation of powers and all that to consider.
> unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
Perhaps they should.
> > But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> > judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> > having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> > government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> > government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> > compared to the alternative.
>
> Can I be president of the internets then?
No.
> > > Right, but the accusation on the Google group that you were not
> > > thorough is a trivial one.
>
> > To you.
>
> I can't possibly be the only one.
The point is that there exists at least one person to whom it is not
trivial.
> > > > > > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > > > > > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > > > > > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > > > > > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > > > > > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > > > > > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > > > > > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > > > > > kind.
>
> > > > > Was it on topic or was it political?
>
> > > > It was both.
>
> > > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> > Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
> Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
Too late.
> > > > > At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> > > > > malicious is conjecture.
>
> > > > So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
> > > > deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
> > > > any such deletion was malicious.
>
> > > Well you have bias too.
>
> > No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> > provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> > yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> > 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> > 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> > to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> > things better.
>
> 1.) everyone is biased.
I am not.
> 2.) you have nothing to back up whether it is malicious or good
> intentioned.
Yes I do. If it was good intentioned, either my post would not have
been deleted or the "WrexTroll" post would have. Since neither is the
case, it was malicious.
> It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
Not logically possible.
> > > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > > malice.
>
> > Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> > act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> > deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
> deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
> objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
What he may or may not have found is irrelevant. The issue at hand is
whether it was objectionable by a reasonable, objective measure. And
the inevitable conclusion was:
1. It was not advertising.
2. It was not abusive/personal attacks.
3. It was not off-topic.
4. The "WrexTroll" post was certainly MORE objectionable and was
allowed to stand.
It should therefore have been allowed to stand.
> > > > Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
> > > > guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
> > > > does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
> > > > attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
> > > > didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
>
> > > Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> > > anyway?
>
> > I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
> > doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
> > quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
> > still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
> > see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
> > it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
> > "stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
> > shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
> > the docs rather than the feature-set.)
>
> Being a Dev is a fine balance of hubris and humility.
That's your argument? Some sort of koan of no obvious relevance?
> > My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> > minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> > described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> > subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> > docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> > ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> > not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> > occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> > had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> > camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> > of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
> Ok, But you didn't check any external sources
Of course not -- external sources are entirely irrelevant to the
question of how thorough I was in searching the clojure API docs. The
only documents relevant to that question, by definition, are ...
drumroll ... the clojure API docs.
Furthermore, if users need to check external sources to use the API
docs effectively, then those API docs have a usability problem
regardless.
So not only haven't you torpedoed my "I was thorough!" argument,
you've also not even *scratched* my "the docs could be improved in
thus-and-such ways" argument, which in the larger scheme of things is
the more important one by far.
> I think you are thorough in completely the wrong way.
/"\
|\./|
| |
| |
|>~<|
| |
/'\| |/'\..
/~\| | | | \
| =[@]= | | \
| | | | | \
F U C K | ~ ~ ~ ~ |` ) Y O U !
| /
\ /
\ /
\ _____ /
|--//''`\--|
| (( +==)) |
|--\_|_//--|
:)
> > And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> > subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> > like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> > not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> > insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> > air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> > Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> > occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> > *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> > line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> > should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> > doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> > conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> > degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
> I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
> seq functions.
So you're agreeing with me now.
What's the remaining 400 lines of your post for then?
> > > Seems like a catch-22 now...
> > > It gets 'moderated' and he's hiding incriminating evidence, it doesn't
> > > get moderated, he's allowing an egregiously offensive post to stay
> > > posted.
>
> > It gets "moderated", or not, while my own posts get reinstated: he's
> > seen the error of his ways and repented of his sins.
>
> Sins against wrex?
And in general. Taking a bug report personally is troubling too, and
ultimately is the more troubling one. Whose bug report it was
ultimately being immaterial.
> > > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > > taking in a conversation.
>
> > There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> > If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> > and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> > a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> > how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> > my post.
>
> > Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> > it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> > one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> > mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> > result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> > voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> > kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> > part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> > words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> > Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> > Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> > or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> > Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
> Tone is an inherent part of language.
Spoken language, yes.
> Earlier you said my post sounded snarky.
> That is tone.
No, it was the wording, mocking something I'd said in a previous post.
> I think long posts on this matter make you seem at least a little
> wound up about it.
Nah; they're just long because the ones they're in reply to are long.
> > > > If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
> > > > content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
> > > > has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
> > > > don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
> > > > seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
> > > > briefly.
>
> > > Right, which would indicate some sort of failure on the part of a
> > > computer somewhere.
> > > (Unless he just blocked you, which I guess is possible).
>
> > Which I guess is a near-certainty, given that during the period of the
> > "outage" ONLY MY POSTS were affected -- plenty of others got posted
> > normally.
>
> I guess, can you post it now??
I very much doubt it and I also doubt it would be wise to try.
> > > > That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
> > > > personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
> > > > 'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
> > > > to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
> > > > nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
> > > > with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
> > > > car, and ego, that is.)
>
> > > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > > what works.
>
> > Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> > for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> > Code is my passion.
>
> Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
> way.
> (i.e. technique is wrong).
More likely that you are. Definitely, bluntly suggesting that someone
else's "technique is wrong" means your technique is wrong. :)
> > > This doesn't just apply to sex.
>
> > You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
> > with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
>
> you can have sex with groupies.
Usenet groupies? With what, heavily lubricated key caps? Or thought
waves?
> > Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
> > the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
> > "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
>
> You know what they say, go big or go home.
?
> > > > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > > > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > > > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > > > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > > > there, and then I get told "Being
> > > > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > > > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > > > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > > > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > > > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > > > Just one!
>
> > > I can name two:
>
> > > Ghandi,
> > > Jesus.
>
> > > :-)
>
> > Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
> > other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
>
> Its not like I named Gandalf and Hiro Protagonist.
No, then there'd have been TWO fictitious names on your list.
> > > Synonyms,
>
> > I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
> > synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
>
> you can with a thesaurus
What thesaurus? And why should I need one? Once again, this is
crossing the line into ludicrousland. If you need a thesaurus to find
something in the docs, then whether you admit it or not, those docs
have got a problem.
> > > tutorials,
>
> > Didn't know of one.
>
> There's dozens on the clojure website.
I'd used a couple before. No mention of reduce at them that I
recalled. Didn't need any after a while, once I had the basic looping
and related constructs down pat and could implement any algorithm I
could think of. At that point, the API docs should have sufficed.
> > > asking in #clojure...
>
> > If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
> > software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
> > holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
> > exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
> > more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
> > anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
>
> I stay as far away from windows as possible lately.
Well, I'm not about to go eeny meeny miney moe, blow away a partition,
and install a whole new operating system on one of my machines just to
please you. Or Rich. Besides, OS-chauvinism is so last century.
> > > For fold, you find the reduce function.
>
> > So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
> > site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
> > links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
> > STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
> > stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
> > reasonable-standards.
>
> Its a better document than the API.
That does not reflect very well on the API page, then, does it?
> > > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> > Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> > to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
> Then that's good.
Not to hear it from Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself, it
isn't. :P
> > > Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
>
> > Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
> > SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
> > hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
> > cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
>
> No I think they are the little ones. M4s or something.
> (maybe not assault rifles but carbines?)
In what jurisdiction? Iran?
> > > > > I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> > > > > :-P
>
> > > > Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
> > > > 6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
> > > > along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
> > > > able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
> > > > development environment that supports developing your code and testing
> > > > it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
> > > > so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
> > > > it, won't hang NB.)
>
> > > Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> > > I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> > > emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
>
> > Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
> > emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
> > install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
> > line or wherever.
>
> I just installed it with eclispe and clojure-dev.
Just to be contrary, no doubt.
*does double-take*
Where the heck did you find clojure-dev? I was dithering between
Eclipse and NetBeans and what made the decision for me was that there
was an enclojure download for NetBeans, but just a lot of hot air
about clojure-dev with no apparent downloadable installer anywhere.
(Similar to the clojure.contrib everyone talks about.)
> Have a little toy project running now.
> Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
Let me know when you have a use for super-lazy-seq.
> > > Although similarly I wouldn't hold my breath for a response from the
> > > accused if I were you.
>
> > > Not really in anyone's best interests for him to.
>
> > His own? His credibility to be a good maintainer would be improved if
> > he demonstrated that, while he occasionally suffered lapses in
> > judgment and took bug reports/similarly personally that he shouldn't
> > have, he was also able to recover from those lapses and, after a few
> > days to cool down, was able to do the right thing.
>
> I get the impression that you guys just might not be convivial
> personalities.
?
As in programmers in general being an ornery sort? Or myself and Rich
in particular? In the latter case, I think I manage to have an okay
personality. Obviously, though, the evidence available to me bears out
an assessment of Rich as ornery. :)
On Jun 21, 1:31 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 5:38 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 12:33 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 19, 6:36 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 18, 6:01 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I said I did look at that page, but skipped parts that didn't seem
> > > > > > > relevant. And then I did an even MORE diligent search: one of the
> > > > > > > entire documentation for everything that operated on sequences. That
> > > > > > > took about half an hour. That's clearly at least as thorough as the
> > > > > > > maximum reasonable amount of thoroughness to expect from someone
> > > > > > > before concluding that functionality is absent.
>
> > > > > > So you did or didn't find reduce?
>
> > > > > Didn't.
>
> > > > So maybe its an error in technique rather than thoroughness?
>
> > > You seem very determined to find some way to pin the blame on me. Why
> > > can't you just accept that it was an accident stemming from the
> > > unlikely occurrence of a seq-related function whose documentation
> > > doesn't mention "seq"?
>
> > The alternative would be agreeing with you.
>
> Is that so bad?
>
not sure
> > > > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> > > The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
> > Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
> > search for this sort of thing in the future.
>
> While missing the point: I shouldn't have to search any site other
> than clojure.org.
>
I thought the question was whether you were thorough?
> > > > You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
>
> > > Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
> > > doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
>
> > It terminates when you run out of synonyms.
>
> That might take years in some cases.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. There has to be *some* point that's considered
> "diligent enough". I'd say that by the 30-minute mark (if you spent
> that time actively searching rather than munching donuts) that point
> has already been passed.
>
Well if you spend 30 minutes searching incorrectly you might as well
have not spent any time searching. "Work smarter, not harder." You
could have searched for fold on there, bounced off wikipedia and
searched the clojure site for the synonyms of fold, and been done in
10 minutes.
> > > > > I SEARCHED THE WHOLE OF THE API DOCS FOR "SEQ". THAT OUGHT TO BE
> > > > > THOROUGH ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE PERSON. OR COURT.
>
> > > > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > > > group.
> > > > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> > > Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> > > rights in a real criminal court:
>
> > > "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> > > somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> > > and executioner."
>
> > Is it not?
>
> It's not the jury, no, and then there's the three branches and
> separation of powers and all that to consider.
>
So how does that support the assumption that it argues for a lack of
defendant's rights? Google groups is not a democracy.
(perhaps it is Sparta?)
> > unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
>
> Perhaps they should.
>
I think it would get too expensive, and then you'd just end up with
someone that you don't like as judge anyway.
> > > But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> > > judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> > > having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> > > government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> > > government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> > > compared to the alternative.
>
> > Can I be president of the internets then?
>
> No.
>
so we agree the internet is nothing like the us government?
> > > > Right, but the accusation on the Google group that you were not
> > > > thorough is a trivial one.
>
> > > To you.
>
> > I can't possibly be the only one.
>
> The point is that there exists at least one person to whom it is not
> trivial.
>
> > > > > > > Furthermore, my post described aspects of the clojure docs. I think
> > > > > > > that places it squarely on topic. My OTHER post was very clearly on
> > > > > > > topic and non-abusive.
>
> > > > > > > Face it -- my posts were not deleted for being off-topic. They were
> > > > > > > deleted because Rich did not personally agree with the opinions
> > > > > > > expressed in them. In other words, this was not order-keeping
> > > > > > > censorship; it was political-speech-muzzling censorship, the worst
> > > > > > > kind.
>
> > > > > > Was it on topic or was it political?
>
> > > > > It was both.
>
> > > > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> > > Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
> > Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
>
> Too late.
>
Not really, he can just block everyone who tries to give the group
internal politics.
:-)
> > > > > > At very least your assertion that Rich's deletion of this post was
> > > > > > malicious is conjecture.
>
> > > > > So far, all the evidence points to it having been intentionally
> > > > > deleted. Since it was not, by any objective standard, objectionable,
> > > > > any such deletion was malicious.
>
> > > > Well you have bias too.
>
> > > No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> > > provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> > > yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> > > 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> > > 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> > > to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> > > things better.
>
> > 1.) everyone is biased.
>
> I am not.
>
You have opinions and are not a space robot, therefore you are biased.
> > 2.) you have nothing to back up whether it is malicious or good
> > intentioned.
>
> Yes I do. If it was good intentioned, either my post would not have
> been deleted or the "WrexTroll" post would have. Since neither is the
> case, it was malicious.
>
> > It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
>
> Not logically possible.
>
Yes it is.
You leave out the possibility of people having different perspectives
on the matter.
I can see perfectly clearly how it is either.
> > > > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > > > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > > > malice.
>
> > > Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> > > act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> > > deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
> > deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
> > objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
>
> What he may or may not have found is irrelevant. The issue at hand is
> whether it was objectionable by a reasonable, objective measure. And
> the inevitable conclusion was:
> 1. It was not advertising.
> 2. It was not abusive/personal attacks.
> 3. It was not off-topic.
> 4. The "WrexTroll" post was certainly MORE objectionable and was
> allowed to stand.
>
And the only reasonable objective person is you?
:)
> It should therefore have been allowed to stand.
>
> > > > > Furthermore, all we have so far from Rich himself on the topic is a
> > > > > guilty silence. Would not an innocent man who reads this group (and he
> > > > > does read it, and occasionally posts to it, and would surely pay
> > > > > attention to a thread titled "Clojure") have jumped in to say "I
> > > > > didn't do anything, it must have been some technical problem!"???
>
> > > > Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> > > > anyway?
>
> > > I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
> > > doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
> > > quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
> > > still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
> > > see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
> > > it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
> > > "stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
> > > shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
> > > the docs rather than the feature-set.)
>
> > Being a Dev is a fine balance of hubris and humility.
>
> That's your argument? Some sort of koan of no obvious relevance?
>
How was that cryptic?
You have to take pride in your work, therefore you take it personally.
You also have to recognise that you are fallible. That's a hard
balance.
Languages are even worse because devs are the worst critics of
software.
> > > My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> > > minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> > > described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> > > subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> > > docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> > > ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> > > not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> > > occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> > > had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> > > camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> > > of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
> > Ok, But you didn't check any external sources
>
> Of course not -- external sources are entirely irrelevant to the
> question of how thorough I was in searching the clojure API docs. The
> only documents relevant to that question, by definition, are ...
> drumroll ... the clojure API docs.
>
'Be more thorough' has meaning outside of the clojure API.
> Furthermore, if users need to check external sources to use the API
> docs effectively, then those API docs have a usability problem
> regardless.
>
You can't go looking at api docs without some practical outside
knowledge of what things do.
Had you not known what 'fold' or 'accum' meant, you would have had to
learn them somewhere?
> So not only haven't you torpedoed my "I was thorough!" argument,
> you've also not even *scratched* my "the docs could be improved in
> thus-and-such ways" argument, which in the larger scheme of things is
> the more important one by far.
>
Your thoroughness argument amounts to you claiming infallibility and
repeating yourself.
I don't see how that can be torpedoed other than pointing out that it
is a piss poor argument, which I have.
docs can always be improved. it is the nature of docs.
> > I think you are thorough in completely the wrong way.
>
> /"\
> |\./|
> | |
> | |
> |>~<|
> | |
> /'\| |/'\..
> /~\| | | | \
> | =[@]= | | \
> | | | | | \
> F U C K | ~ ~ ~ ~ |` ) Y O U !
> | /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ _____ /
> |--//''`\--|
> | (( +==)) |
> |--\_|_//--|
>
> :)
>
Is that a Timex?
> > > And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> > > subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> > > like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> > > not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> > > insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> > > air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> > > Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> > > occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> > > *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> > > line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> > > should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> > > doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> > > conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> > > degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
> > I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
> > seq functions.
>
> So you're agreeing with me now.
>
I never had an opinion on the nature of the documentation, you just
seem to want to argue with me about it.
> What's the remaining 400 lines of your post for then?
>
Mostly quoting you.
> > > > Seems like a catch-22 now...
> > > > It gets 'moderated' and he's hiding incriminating evidence, it doesn't
> > > > get moderated, he's allowing an egregiously offensive post to stay
> > > > posted.
>
> > > It gets "moderated", or not, while my own posts get reinstated: he's
> > > seen the error of his ways and repented of his sins.
>
> > Sins against wrex?
>
> And in general. Taking a bug report personally is troubling too, and
> ultimately is the more troubling one. Whose bug report it was
> ultimately being immaterial.
>
> > > > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > > > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > > > taking in a conversation.
>
> > > There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> > > If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> > > and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> > > a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> > > how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> > > my post.
>
> > > Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> > > it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> > > one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> > > mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> > > result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> > > voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> > > kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> > > part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> > > words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> > > Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> > > Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> > > or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> > > Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
> > Tone is an inherent part of language.
>
> Spoken language, yes.
>
Written language too.
Take an english class.
Most of it is about the author's 'tone'.
> > Earlier you said my post sounded snarky.
> > That is tone.
>
> No, it was the wording, mocking something I'd said in a previous post.
>
it sounded, it had tone. mocking is a tone.
I'd say your tone is kind of obstinate.
> > I think long posts on this matter make you seem at least a little
> > wound up about it.
>
> Nah; they're just long because the ones they're in reply to are long.
>
> > > > > If my post deserved to be deleted on the objective merits of its
> > > > > content, than that one surely did, yet as of today, 20 June 2009, it
> > > > > has been allowed to stand for four days. (You can Google it if you
> > > > > don't believe me.) My posts that were deleted were deleted within
> > > > > seconds; indeed, so quickly that I never saw them appear, even
> > > > > briefly.
>
> > > > Right, which would indicate some sort of failure on the part of a
> > > > computer somewhere.
> > > > (Unless he just blocked you, which I guess is possible).
>
> > > Which I guess is a near-certainty, given that during the period of the
> > > "outage" ONLY MY POSTS were affected -- plenty of others got posted
> > > normally.
>
> > I guess, can you post it now??
>
> I very much doubt it and I also doubt it would be wise to try.
>
> > > > > That usually indicates some kind of flunky or hanger-on in a cult of
> > > > > personality. Believe me, I've seen lots of that sort of thing on the
> > > > > 'net. Usually, the people with the most defenders/groupies have tended
> > > > > to be particularly big assholes, too, which is funny since you'd think
> > > > > nice guys would get the groupies instead. (Same thing with women --
> > > > > with most, it's the size that counts. Size of a guy's bank account,
> > > > > car, and ego, that is.)
>
> > > > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > > > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > > > what works.
>
> > > Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> > > for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> > > Code is my passion.
>
> > Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
> > way.
> > (i.e. technique is wrong).
>
> More likely that you are. Definitely, bluntly suggesting that someone
> else's "technique is wrong" means your technique is wrong. :)
>
No, I'm not the one getting his posts moderated.
> > > > This doesn't just apply to sex.
>
> > > You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
> > > with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
>
> > you can have sex with groupies.
>
> Usenet groupies? With what, heavily lubricated key caps? Or thought
> waves?
>
You're the one who brought up groupies. and source code sex.
> > > Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
> > > the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
> > > "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
>
> > You know what they say, go big or go home.
>
> ?
>
You know, they say that.
> > > > > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > > > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > > > > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > > > > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > > > > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > > > > there, and then I get told "Being
> > > > > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > > > > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > > > > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > > > > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > > > > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > > > > Just one!
>
> > > > I can name two:
>
> > > > Ghandi,
> > > > Jesus.
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
> > > other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
>
> > Its not like I named Gandalf and Hiro Protagonist.
>
> No, then there'd have been TWO fictitious names on your list.
>
I don't see how it being a living person is relevant.
I'm sure there are a number of people who would have responded better
than you.
How about:
Ghengis Kahn
and
Giggles the Clown.
Ghengis would have just taken over the group (and probably slept with
our women); Giggles would have honked his rubber nose (and probably
slept with our women).
> > > > Synonyms,
>
> > > I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
> > > synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
>
> > you can with a thesaurus
>
> What thesaurus? And why should I need one? Once again, this is
> crossing the line into ludicrousland. If you need a thesaurus to find
> something in the docs, then whether you admit it or not, those docs
> have got a problem.
>
Or there is something wrong with you.
> > > > tutorials,
>
> > > Didn't know of one.
>
> > There's dozens on the clojure website.
>
> I'd used a couple before. No mention of reduce at them that I
> recalled. Didn't need any after a while, once I had the basic looping
> and related constructs down pat and could implement any algorithm I
> could think of. At that point, the API docs should have sufficed.
>
> > > > asking in #clojure...
>
> > > If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
> > > software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
> > > holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
> > > exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
> > > more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
> > > anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
>
> > I stay as far away from windows as possible lately.
>
> Well, I'm not about to go eeny meeny miney moe, blow away a partition,
> and install a whole new operating system on one of my machines just to
> please you. Or Rich. Besides, OS-chauvinism is so last century.
>
Your the one who brought up getting win-nuked over IRC.
You can't get win-nuked on linux, only win.
(I guess you could get lin-nuked on linux though).
> > > > For fold, you find the reduce function.
>
> > > So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
> > > site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
> > > links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
> > > STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
> > > stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
> > > reasonable-standards.
>
> > Its a better document than the API.
>
> That does not reflect very well on the API page, then, does it?
>
No I guess not.
Or it reflects really well on the great document I just steered you
towards.
which is linked from clojure.org i'm pretty sure.
Aren't I nice?
> > > > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > > > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> > > Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> > > to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
> > Then that's good.
>
> Not to hear it from Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself, it
> isn't. :P
>
Who?
> > > > Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
>
> > > Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
> > > SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
> > > hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
> > > cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
>
> > No I think they are the little ones. M4s or something.
> > (maybe not assault rifles but carbines?)
>
> In what jurisdiction? Iran?
>
I think L.A.
I don't think Iran is in the united states.
> > > > > > I can't even get clojure installed properly.
> > > > > > :-P
>
> > > > > Install NetBeans 6.5.1 (last I checked it won't work properly with
> > > > > 6.7) and then install enclojure and you'll have clojure 1.0 hitch
> > > > > along for the ride. As an extra added bonus feature, you'll even be
> > > > > able to develop in it using a 100% emacs free, zero added sodium
> > > > > development environment that supports developing your code and testing
> > > > > it as you go in a REPL. (The REPL even runs in a separate JVM from NB,
> > > > > so screwing it up in some way, such as executing an infinite loop from
> > > > > it, won't hang NB.)
>
> > > > Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> > > > I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> > > > emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
>
> > > Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
> > > emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
> > > install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
> > > line or wherever.
>
> > I just installed it with eclispe and clojure-dev.
>
> Just to be contrary, no doubt.
>
> *does double-take*
>
Yeah mostly, also i tried netbeans and didn't like it as much as
eclipse.
I think there is an emacs plugin for it too somewhere so i might dig
that up and mix+match stuff. I like the emacs commands. key-chords
ftw.
http://code.google.com/p/clojure-dev/wiki/Documentation
> Where the heck did you find clojure-dev? I was dithering between
> Eclipse and NetBeans and what made the decision for me was that there
> was an enclojure download for NetBeans, but just a lot of hot air
> about clojure-dev with no apparent downloadable installer anywhere.
You have to read the documentation to know how to install it.
I sense a not RTFMing pattern here...
> (Similar to the clojure.contrib everyone talks about.)
>
clojure.contrib is here:
http://code.google.com/p/clojure-contrib/
You have to build it with ant and put it in your classpath environment
variable.
I found these things out by reading and talking to a magical gnome
whose name rhymed with Gamoogle.
> > Have a little toy project running now.
> > Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
>
> Let me know when you have a use for super-lazy-seq.
>
Sure thing, what's that?
> > > > Although similarly I wouldn't hold my breath for a response from the
> > > > accused if I were you.
>
> > > > Not really in anyone's best interests for him to.
>
> > > His own? His credibility to be a good maintainer would be improved if
> > > he demonstrated that, while he occasionally suffered lapses in
> > > judgment and took bug reports/similarly personally that he shouldn't
> > > have, he was also able to recover from those lapses and, after a few
> > > days to cool down, was able to do the right thing.
>
> > I get the impression that you guys just might not be convivial
> > personalities.
>
> ?
>
> As in programmers in general being an ornery sort? Or myself and Rich
> in particular? In the latter case, I think I manage to have an okay
> personality. Obviously, though, the evidence available to me bears out
> an assessment of Rich as ornery. :)
Yeah that's a pretty good summary of the thought.
On Jun 21, 2:31 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 1:31 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 5:38 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> > > > The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
> > > Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
> > > search for this sort of thing in the future.
>
> > While missing the point: I shouldn't have to search any site other
> > than clojure.org.
>
> I thought the question was whether you were thorough?
I was quite thorough in my search of clojure.org.
> > > > > You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
>
> > > > Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
> > > > doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
>
> > > It terminates when you run out of synonyms.
>
> > That might take years in some cases.
>
> > Don't be ridiculous. There has to be *some* point that's considered
> > "diligent enough". I'd say that by the 30-minute mark (if you spent
> > that time actively searching rather than munching donuts) that point
> > has already been passed.
>
> Well if you spend 30 minutes searching incorrectly
I do not search incorrectly.
> > > > > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > > > > group.
> > > > > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> > > > Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> > > > rights in a real criminal court:
>
> > > > "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> > > > somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> > > > and executioner."
>
> > > Is it not?
>
> > It's not the jury, no, and then there's the three branches and
> > separation of powers and all that to consider.
>
> So how does that support the assumption that it argues for a lack of
> defendant's rights?
You argued that Rich having as much power as he did automatically
precluded the possibility of that power being wielded wisely, and with
checks and balances from other users. The same argument could be used
to claim that demoncracies and fair trials were impossible in non-
anarchies because the government has as much power as it does. The
real world evidence says that the latter thesis is nonsense; a
government can have power, yet still be fair and democratic. Therefore
your argument must have been flawed.
> > > unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
>
> > Perhaps they should.
>
> I think it would get too expensive, and then you'd just end up with
> someone that you don't like as judge anyway.
Expensive? To have a jury trial in a webboard would mean to have both
sides present their cases and then have (some of) the uninvolved forum
users vote. I don't see where money enters into it. Some forum
software (like phpBB, but apparently not Google Groups specifically)
even provides direct support for polling the user base.
> > > > But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> > > > judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> > > > having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> > > > government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> > > > government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> > > > compared to the alternative.
>
> > > Can I be president of the internets then?
>
> > No.
>
> so we agree the internet is nothing like the us government?
That is a straw man of your invention.
> > > > > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> > > > Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
> > > Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
>
> > Too late.
>
> Not really, he can just block everyone who tries to give the group
> internal politics.
He, himself, by his very existence, gives the group internal politics,
so he'd have to ban himself too.
Where there's power, there's politics, especially if someone has more
power than someone else. Even stripped of any special wheel bits on
his Google Groups account, Rich's status as Clojure's primary
developer would grant him some effective power.
> > > > > Well you have bias too.
>
> > > > No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> > > > provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> > > > yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> > > > 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> > > > 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> > > > to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> > > > things better.
>
> > > 1.) everyone is biased.
>
> > I am not.
>
> You have opinions and are not a space robot, therefore you are biased.
How do you know I'm not a space robot? You'll notice I was careful to
word my earlier example involving text-to-speech software so as to
state that a robotic voice from such software would not prove that I
was a robot, but not the state that I might not nonetheless be one. :)
> > > It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
>
> > Not logically possible.
>
> Yes it is.
No, it is not.
> You leave out the possibility of people having different perspectives
> on the matter.
> I can see perfectly clearly how it is either.
Perhaps you are schizophrenic. I, however, am not, and "good
intentioned" and "malicious" are clearly mutually exclusive. Rich
can't have had only good intentions, and simultaneously have had bad
intentions, when he did what he did. Unless you're arguing that HE
might be schizophrenic.
> > > > > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > > > > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > > > > malice.
>
> > > > Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> > > > act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> > > > deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
> > > deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
> > > objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
>
> > What he may or may not have found is irrelevant. The issue at hand is
> > whether it was objectionable by a reasonable, objective measure. And
> > the inevitable conclusion was:
> > 1. It was not advertising.
> > 2. It was not abusive/personal attacks.
> > 3. It was not off-topic.
> > 4. The "WrexTroll" post was certainly MORE objectionable and was
> > allowed to stand.
>
> And the only reasonable objective person is you?
> :)
This isn't about me. This is about the evidence. I've presented
evidence to support my thesis. You have not. "Put up or shut up", as
the phrase goes.
> > > > > Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> > > > > anyway?
>
> > > > I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
> > > > doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
> > > > quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
> > > > still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
> > > > see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
> > > > it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
> > > > "stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
> > > > shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
> > > > the docs rather than the feature-set.)
>
> > > Being a Dev is a fine balance of hubris and humility.
>
> > That's your argument? Some sort of koan of no obvious relevance?
>
> How was that cryptic?
> You have to take pride in your work, therefore you take it personally.
> You also have to recognise that you are fallible. That's a hard
> balance.
> Languages are even worse because devs are the worst critics of
> software.
I didn't claim he didn't have a tough job to do. Just that he did have
a job to do.
> > > > My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> > > > minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> > > > described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> > > > subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> > > > docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> > > > ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> > > > not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> > > > occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> > > > had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> > > > camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> > > > of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
> > > Ok, But you didn't check any external sources
>
> > Of course not -- external sources are entirely irrelevant to the
> > question of how thorough I was in searching the clojure API docs. The
> > only documents relevant to that question, by definition, are ...
> > drumroll ... the clojure API docs.
>
> 'Be more thorough' has meaning outside of the clojure API.
Not when the discussion was specifically about how thorough I had been
in searching ... drumroll ... the clojure API docs. My thoroughness or
not at searching other things never arose as an issue.
The rhetorical trick you are now using in your misguided defense of
Rich is that of spuriously altering the scope. It's quite a common one
-- X says the sky is blue, Y says it's not, X takes a photo out the
window, posts it, and says "Look -- blue!", and Y, back against the
wall, argues that the sky is sometimes grey, sometimes black with
white speckles, sometimes lots of colors, and sometimes white. This
makes X's statement look wrong, which if it was intended to be fully
general, perhaps it would be, but X was talking about the sky's color
at a particular place and time and had supported his thesis with
evidence, so Y's tactic should not fool any but the most unintelligent
members of the audience.
(It is also possible to spuriously narrow the scope: X says the sky
can be many colors, Y posts a photograph of a blue sky and says "I
only see one color here; 'many', my ass".)
> > Furthermore, if users need to check external sources to use the API
> > docs effectively, then those API docs have a usability problem
> > regardless.
>
> You can't go looking at api docs
It's a free country. I'll look at whatever I please, so long as it's
not an invasion of anyone's privacy.
> Had you not known what 'fold' or 'accum' meant, you would have had to
> learn them somewhere?
From the documentation of whatever had those functions, I would hope.
A search for "accumulate" might find the phrase "accumulate a result
over a list or other sequence", say, in well-written documentation.
If the documentation of "fold" didn't explain what "fold" did in plain
English somewhere, and maybe provide a couple of examples, then it
would be poor documentation, whereas if it did, a relevant search
should tend to find it; and thus my point is made.
> > So not only haven't you torpedoed my "I was thorough!" argument,
> > you've also not even *scratched* my "the docs could be improved in
> > thus-and-such ways" argument, which in the larger scheme of things is
> > the more important one by far.
>
> Your thoroughness argument amounts to you claiming infallibility and
> repeating yourself.
That's nonsense. My thoroughness argument amounts to my posting a
specific methodology that only the most anal-retentive of *assholes*
could possibly consider "not good enough".
YOUR arguments amount to YOU claiming infallibility and repeating
yourself. I notice you rarely conceding a point, but very frequently
ignoring evidence or reasoning put forth by me in favor of simply
repeating the same thing you'd just said. Mere repetition does not
carry an argument. Logic and a weight of evidence are needed to do
that.
> > > I think you are thorough in completely the wrong way.
>
> > /"\
> > |\./|
> > | |
> > | |
> > |>~<|
> > | |
> > /'\| |/'\..
> > /~\| | | | \
> > | =[@]= | | \
> > | | | | | \
> > F U C K | ~ ~ ~ ~ |` ) Y O U !
> > | /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ _____ /
> > |--//''`\--|
> > | (( +==)) |
> > |--\_|_//--|
>
> > :)
>
> Is that a Timex?
Gold Rolex, actually. The software biz is one of the areas that pays
well these days.
> > > > And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> > > > subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> > > > like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> > > > not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> > > > insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> > > > air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> > > > Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> > > > occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> > > > *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> > > > line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> > > > should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> > > > doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> > > > conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> > > > degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
> > > I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
> > > seq functions.
>
> > So you're agreeing with me now.
>
> I never had an opinion on the nature of the documentation, you just
> seem to want to argue with me about it.
Eh -- if you never had an opinion, why did you start arguing with me
about it, and why are you continuing to do so? There are really only
two reasons for you to argue about it. One is you have an opinion of
your own; the other is it's on someone's behalf. The latter, however,
would contradict your claim not to be Rich's lap-dog.
So which is it?
> > What's the remaining 400 lines of your post for then?
>
> Mostly quoting you.
You know what I meant. If you've yielded on the main bone of
contention, why not just do so and then go find something new (and
preferably more constructive than arguing on usenet) to do?
> > > > > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > > > > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > > > > taking in a conversation.
>
> > > > There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> > > > If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> > > > and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> > > > a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> > > > how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> > > > my post.
>
> > > > Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> > > > it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> > > > one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> > > > mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> > > > result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> > > > voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> > > > kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> > > > part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> > > > words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> > > > Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> > > > Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> > > > or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> > > > Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
> > > Tone is an inherent part of language.
>
> > Spoken language, yes.
>
> Written language too.
Written language with things like italics and bold available, maybe.
ASCII, no.
In the meantime, your argument to support your contention that I'm a
troll still appears to be one that, if it were sound, would also prove
that Stephen Hawking was a robot, and therefore obviously is *not*
sound.
> > > Earlier you said my post sounded snarky.
> > > That is tone.
>
> > No, it was the wording, mocking something I'd said in a previous post.
>
> it sounded
No, it didn't. Or if it did, the sound came from another source than
I, and I am not responsible for it.
> it had tone.
No, it didn't.
> mocking is a tone.
No, it isn't.
> I'd say your tone is kind of obstinate.
No, it isn't. I don't have a tone. Maybe by ASCII is kind of
obstinate. It tends to get that way when someone is repeatedly wrong,
even after I've explained to them why their logic fails them and
proved that their arguments aren't sound.
> > > > > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > > > > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > > > > what works.
>
> > > > Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> > > > for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> > > > Code is my passion.
>
> > > Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
> > > way.
> > > (i.e. technique is wrong).
>
> > More likely that you are. Definitely, bluntly suggesting that someone
> > else's "technique is wrong" means your technique is wrong. :)
>
> No, I'm not the one getting his posts moderated.
You're not posting to a moderated group, so that means nothing.
Furthermore, since it's been clearly established that Rich's actions
were unfair, his actions do not reflect on me, only on him. If the
WrexTroll post had been swiftly deleted, you'd have a ghost of a
chance of using Rich's deletions of my posts as evidence that
something was wrong with them, but the fact that they are clearly much
less worthy of deletion than the WrexTroll post, yet lasted a much
shorter time, proves that Rich's judgment on these matters is not a
reliable indicator of another poster's quality at all.
Basically, your argument has the same problem as two other arguments
of yours, and a similar reductio-ad-absurdum disproof.
One argument of yours "proved" democracy and fair trials impossible
outside anarchies. (Reality: probably just about the opposite,
impossibly IN anarchies.)
A second "proved" that Stephen Hawking was a robot.
This third one "proves" that the WrexTroll post displays better social
skills than my posts do.
All three of them logically require accepting an absurd conclusion,
and all three of them are therefore faulty.
> > > > > This doesn't just apply to sex.
>
> > > > You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
> > > > with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
>
> > > you can have sex with groupies.
>
> > Usenet groupies? With what, heavily lubricated key caps? Or thought
> > waves?
>
> You're the one who brought up groupies. and source code sex.
I did not. You did, implicitly, by being one of Rich's. Groupies, that
is. I couldn't venture a guess as to whether you're one of his sex
partners, not given the limited amount of information presently
available to me on that topic. :)
> > > > Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
> > > > the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
> > > > "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
>
> > > You know what they say, go big or go home.
>
> > ?
>
> You know, they say that.
Okay, I'm dismissing your line here as incoherent babble. Moving
on ...
> > > > > > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > > > > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > > > > > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > > > > > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > > > > > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > > > > > there, and then I get told "Being
> > > > > > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > > > > > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > > > > > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > > > > > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > > > > > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > > > > > Just one!
>
> > > > > I can name two:
>
> > > > > Ghandi,
> > > > > Jesus.
>
> > > > > :-)
>
> > > > Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
> > > > other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
>
> > > Its not like I named Gandalf and Hiro Protagonist.
>
> > No, then there'd have been TWO fictitious names on your list.
>
> I don't see how it being a living person is relevant.
Then you shouldn't care if the car you're in crashes, or any of that
stuff. :)
> I'm sure there are a number of people who would have responded better
> than you.
I doubt it.
> How about:
>
> Ghengis Kahn
You're kidding. He'd have thrown his computer out the window of his
yurt, had one of his underlings randomly executed, and then stormed
Rich's country with a horde of Mongol warriors on horseback until they
called in the National Guard.
> and
> Giggles the Clown.
Giggles would either manifest behavior worthy of a straitjacket and
padded room, or else act normal and punch Rich in the nose, I suspect.
> > > > > Synonyms,
>
> > > > I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
> > > > synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
>
> > > you can with a thesaurus
>
> > What thesaurus? And why should I need one? Once again, this is
> > crossing the line into ludicrousland. If you need a thesaurus to find
> > something in the docs, then whether you admit it or not, those docs
> > have got a problem.
>
> Or there is something wrong with you.
Nope. Got my checkup just last week. Clean bill of health.
> > > > > asking in #clojure...
>
> > > > If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
> > > > software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
> > > > holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
> > > > exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
> > > > more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
> > > > anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
>
> > > I stay as far away from windows as possible lately.
>
> > Well, I'm not about to go eeny meeny miney moe, blow away a partition,
> > and install a whole new operating system on one of my machines just to
> > please you. Or Rich. Besides, OS-chauvinism is so last century.
>
> Your the one who brought up getting win-nuked over IRC.
> You can't get win-nuked on linux, only win.
You're the one who brought up IRC. I pointed out that I suspected it
was unsafe. Your expectations appear to require me to either put my
machine at risk in one way, or put my machine at risk in another way
to be satisfied. In that case, I think I shall choose not to satisfy
your expectations, while publicly pointing out (once again) that your
expectations are ludicrous.
> > > > > For fold, you find the reduce function.
>
> > > > So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
> > > > site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
> > > > links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
> > > > STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
> > > > stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
> > > > reasonable-standards.
>
> > > Its a better document than the API.
>
> > That does not reflect very well on the API page, then, does it?
>
> No I guess not.
All-righty then.
> > > > > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > > > > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> > > > Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> > > > to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
> > > Then that's good.
>
> > Not to hear it from Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself, it
> > isn't. :P
>
> Who?
Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself. You know, the three
people that personally attacked me in response to that implementation.
You really shouldn't argue with someone when you've got a memory like
a sieve, especially if your opponent's is somewhere around "steel
trap" territory. Sooner or later you'll forget some lie you told and
tell a different, inconsistent one, and then you'll go down in flames
with your rudder, engine, and credibility shot full of holes.
> > > > > Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
>
> > > > Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
> > > > SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
> > > > hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
> > > > cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
>
> > > No I think they are the little ones. M4s or something.
> > > (maybe not assault rifles but carbines?)
>
> > In what jurisdiction? Iran?
>
> I think L.A.
Ah, the land of the free with advertisements and the home of the brave
Rodney King beaters. So brave they dared do it right in front of a
camera! Or is that stupid? It is SUCH a fine line sometimes. :)
> > > > > Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> > > > > I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> > > > > emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
>
> > > > Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
> > > > emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
> > > > install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
> > > > line or wherever.
>
> > > I just installed it with eclispe and clojure-dev.
>
> > Just to be contrary, no doubt.
>
> > *does double-take*
>
> Yeah mostly, also i tried netbeans and didn't like it as much as
> eclipse.
NetBeans never eats your source code.
> I think there is an emacs plugin for it too somewhere so i might dig
> that up and mix+match stuff. I like the emacs commands.
Somehow, this does not surprise me. Brussels sprouts, too? Cabbage?
Cubs fan? Or worse -- Senators. As in that hockey team from Canada,
not the upper house of our esteemed legislature. Or perhaps even the
Leafs. Or maybe all three.
That would fit right in with leaky arguments, endless repetition,
emacs commands, and sex with keyboards.
> > Where the heck did you find clojure-dev? I was dithering between
> > Eclipse and NetBeans and what made the decision for me was that there
> > was an enclojure download for NetBeans, but just a lot of hot air
> > about clojure-dev with no apparent downloadable installer anywhere.
>
> You have to read the documentation to know how to install it.
Catch-22. There is supposed to be a "files" or "downloads" link on a
project's page, with prominently labeled downloads such as "source",
"Windows binary", "RedHat binary", and suchlike. You download and
unzip/run the appropriate one, then read the "readme" file.
If you have to read the "readme" file to even find the installer/
archive on the web page to download it and unzip it and extract the
"readme" file, then, not to put too fine a point on it, you're fucked.
> > (Similar to the clojure.contrib everyone talks about.)
>
> clojure.contrib is here:http://code.google.com/p/clojure-contrib/
I meant the lack of an apparent download link.
> I found these things out by reading and talking to a magical gnome
I now suspect I know what causes the disparate problems. Leaky
arguments, sex with keyboards, emacs commands, endless repetition,
Brussels sprouts -- now that you've also mentioned magical gnomes, it
all fits.
I guess you had your field guide upside down or something. The little
"X" beside the pretty picture of the red mushroom with white spots
means POISONOUS. Well known for causing the munchies, delirium,
excessive urination, and yes, hallucinations, that one.
You got lucky. Some of the poisonous ones can kill.
> > > Have a little toy project running now.
> > > Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
>
> > Let me know when you have a use for super-lazy-seq.
>
> Sure thing, what's that?
Let me check on whether a memory like a sieve is also a symptom of
amanita poisoning. I'll get back to you.
On Jun 22, 3:38 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:31 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 1:31 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 5:38 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> > > > > The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
> > > > Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
> > > > search for this sort of thing in the future.
>
> > > While missing the point: I shouldn't have to search any site other
> > > than clojure.org.
>
> > I thought the question was whether you were thorough?
>
> I was quite thorough in my search of clojure.org.
>
And your search of the other large % of human knowledge was completely
incomplete.
> > > > > > You didn't find it ... so look for a synonym and try again.
>
> > > > > Your algorithm has a problem: if the sought functionality genuinely
> > > > > doesn't exist (yet), it never terminates.
>
> > > > It terminates when you run out of synonyms.
>
> > > That might take years in some cases.
>
> > > Don't be ridiculous. There has to be *some* point that's considered
> > > "diligent enough". I'd say that by the 30-minute mark (if you spent
> > > that time actively searching rather than munching donuts) that point
> > > has already been passed.
>
> > Well if you spend 30 minutes searching incorrectly
>
> I do not search incorrectly.
>
> > > > > > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > > > > > group.
> > > > > > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> > > > > Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> > > > > rights in a real criminal court:
>
> > > > > "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> > > > > somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> > > > > and executioner."
>
> > > > Is it not?
>
> > > It's not the jury, no, and then there's the three branches and
> > > separation of powers and all that to consider.
>
> > So how does that support the assumption that it argues for a lack of
> > defendant's rights?
>
> You argued that Rich having as much power as he did automatically
> precluded the possibility of that power being wielded wisely, and with
> checks and balances from other users. The same argument could be used
> to claim that demoncracies and fair trials were impossible in non-
> anarchies because the government has as much power as it does. The
> real world evidence says that the latter thesis is nonsense; a
> government can have power, yet still be fair and democratic. Therefore
> your argument must have been flawed.
>
Slippery slope arguments that ignore the possibility of middle ground
are not good arguments.
(They're logical fallacies).
It could also be used to argue that democracies aren't perfect.
> > > > unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
>
> > > Perhaps they should.
>
> > I think it would get too expensive, and then you'd just end up with
> > someone that you don't like as judge anyway.
>
> Expensive? To have a jury trial in a webboard would mean to have both
> sides present their cases and then have (some of) the uninvolved forum
> users vote. I don't see where money enters into it. Some forum
> software (like phpBB, but apparently not Google Groups specifically)
> even provides direct support for polling the user base.
>
You've got to pay the jury a stipend and have attorneys for both
parties.
You'd also end up with a lot of useless spam votes about board
politics
when all I want to know is how these damn libraries work.
> > > > > But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> > > > > judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> > > > > having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> > > > > government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> > > > > government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> > > > > compared to the alternative.
>
> > > > Can I be president of the internets then?
>
> > > No.
>
> > so we agree the internet is nothing like the us government?
>
> That is a straw man of your invention.
>
How can I invent things that you wrote?
Blaming me for something stupid you wrote... I don't even know what
that is...
> > > > > > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> > > > > Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
> > > > Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
>
> > > Too late.
>
> > Not really, he can just block everyone who tries to give the group
> > internal politics.
>
> He, himself, by his very existence, gives the group internal politics,
> so he'd have to ban himself too.
>
> Where there's power, there's politics, especially if someone has more
> power than someone else. Even stripped of any special wheel bits on
> his Google Groups account, Rich's status as Clojure's primary
> developer would grant him some effective power.
>
There are politics and then there are internal politics.
He can keep the group from having internal politics by not having
political discussions within the group. Stating a tautology about the
nature of groups of people doesn't help your argument.
> > > > > > Well you have bias too.
>
> > > > > No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> > > > > provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> > > > > yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> > > > > 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> > > > > 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> > > > > to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> > > > > things better.
>
> > > > 1.) everyone is biased.
>
> > > I am not.
>
> > You have opinions and are not a space robot, therefore you are biased.
>
> How do you know I'm not a space robot? You'll notice I was careful to
> word my earlier example involving text-to-speech software so as to
> state that a robotic voice from such software would not prove that I
> was a robot, but not the state that I might not nonetheless be one. :)
>
Ok, so you think you are a space robot and are crazy.
or
You admit you are biased.
> > > > It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
>
> > > Not logically possible.
>
> > Yes it is.
>
> No, it is not.
>
Thanks for snipping the part about perspective.
Quoting me out of context is a little juvenile, don't you think?
> > You leave out the possibility of people having different perspectives
> > on the matter.
> > I can see perfectly clearly how it is either.
>
> Perhaps you are schizophrenic. I, however, am not, and "good
> intentioned" and "malicious" are clearly mutually exclusive. Rich
> can't have had only good intentions, and simultaneously have had bad
> intentions, when he did what he did. Unless you're arguing that HE
> might be schizophrenic.
>
Having complex emotion is not schizophrenia.
Having a complex understanding of perspective and intent is also not
schizophrenia.
(And I believe the term you were looking for was 'multiple personality
disorder',
which is also much different from schizophrenia...)
> > > > > > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > > > > > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > > > > > malice.
>
> > > > > Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> > > > > act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> > > > > deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
> > > > deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
> > > > objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
>
> > > What he may or may not have found is irrelevant. The issue at hand is
> > > whether it was objectionable by a reasonable, objective measure. And
> > > the inevitable conclusion was:
> > > 1. It was not advertising.
> > > 2. It was not abusive/personal attacks.
> > > 3. It was not off-topic.
> > > 4. The "WrexTroll" post was certainly MORE objectionable and was
> > > allowed to stand.
>
> > And the only reasonable objective person is you?
> > :)
>
> This isn't about me. This is about the evidence. I've presented
> evidence to support my thesis. You have not. "Put up or shut up", as
> the phrase goes.
>
You're right, its not about you, its about your gigantic ego.
Face it, you haven't posted any serious evidence (beyond a two word
post not getting deleted).
You've posted a bunch of conjecture mixed in with random accusations
of impropriety.
> > > > > > Well if he deleted your post twice, what do you care of his opinion
> > > > > > anyway?
>
> > > > > I care more that he be a good maintainer for clojure. That is now in
> > > > > doubt, since he seems to take (some) bug reports personally, not a
> > > > > quality of a good maintainer. (And we're not talking "Rich, clojure is
> > > > > still missing X, you stupid doofus", which I would not be bothered to
> > > > > see him take personally. We're talking closer to "It's version 1.0 but
> > > > > it still seems to be missing X", with no naming of names and no
> > > > > "stupid", "doofus", or similar epithets. A good software developer
> > > > > shouldn't take that personally, even if the problem turns out to be in
> > > > > the docs rather than the feature-set.)
>
> > > > Being a Dev is a fine balance of hubris and humility.
>
> > > That's your argument? Some sort of koan of no obvious relevance?
>
> > How was that cryptic?
> > You have to take pride in your work, therefore you take it personally.
> > You also have to recognise that you are fallible. That's a hard
> > balance.
> > Languages are even worse because devs are the worst critics of
> > software.
>
> I didn't claim he didn't have a tough job to do. Just that he did have
> a job to do.
>
> > > > > My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> > > > > minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> > > > > described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> > > > > subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> > > > > docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> > > > > ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> > > > > not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> > > > > occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> > > > > had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> > > > > camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> > > > > of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
> > > > Ok, But you didn't check any external sources
>
> > > Of course not -- external sources are entirely irrelevant to the
> > > question of how thorough I was in searching the clojure API docs. The
> > > only documents relevant to that question, by definition, are ...
> > > drumroll ... the clojure API docs.
>
> > 'Be more thorough' has meaning outside of the clojure API.
>
> Not when the discussion was specifically about how thorough I had been
> in searching ... drumroll ... the clojure API docs. My thoroughness or
> not at searching other things never arose as an issue.
>
How would you define 'be more thorough' using only the clojure api?
The clojure API is not recursively defined, therefore it requires
outside knowledge to understand.
You have not demonstrated the requisite knowledge to understand it.
> The rhetorical trick you are now using in your misguided defense of
> Rich is that of spuriously altering the scope. It's quite a common one
> -- X says the sky is blue, Y says it's not, X takes a photo out the
> window, posts it, and says "Look -- blue!", and Y, back against the
> wall, argues that the sky is sometimes grey, sometimes black with
> white speckles, sometimes lots of colors, and sometimes white. This
> makes X's statement look wrong, which if it was intended to be fully
> general, perhaps it would be, but X was talking about the sky's color
> at a particular place and time and had supported his thesis with
> evidence, so Y's tactic should not fool any but the most unintelligent
> members of the audience.
I don't see how it is a good argument that a person using clojure is
restricted to the clojure site. It seems that if there are decent
resources available, a reasonable user would go out and use them.
Requiring that everything you could possibly want to know about
programming clojure be located on the clojure.org website is not only
ridiculous, it is also a heinously inefficient duplication of effort.
>
> (It is also possible to spuriously narrow the scope: X says the sky
> can be many colors, Y posts a photograph of a blue sky and says "I
> only see one color here; 'many', my ass".)
>
> > > Furthermore, if users need to check external sources to use the API
> > > docs effectively, then those API docs have a usability problem
> > > regardless.
>
> > You can't go looking at api docs
>
> It's a free country. I'll look at whatever I please, so long as it's
> not an invasion of anyone's privacy.
>
And you'll get flamed for being not thorough.
and quoting people out of context.
> > Had you not known what 'fold' or 'accum' meant, you would have had to
> > learn them somewhere?
>
> From the documentation of whatever had those functions, I would hope.
> A search for "accumulate" might find the phrase "accumulate a result
> over a list or other sequence", say, in well-written documentation.
>
That's a recursive definition, what if I don't know what accumulate
means?
> If the documentation of "fold" didn't explain what "fold" did in plain
> English somewhere, and maybe provide a couple of examples, then it
> would be poor documentation, whereas if it did, a relevant search
> should tend to find it; and thus my point is made.
>
if you explain in plain English it clearly doesn't follow that a
simple arbitrary textual search will find it.
> > > So not only haven't you torpedoed my "I was thorough!" argument,
> > > you've also not even *scratched* my "the docs could be improved in
> > > thus-and-such ways" argument, which in the larger scheme of things is
> > > the more important one by far.
>
> > Your thoroughness argument amounts to you claiming infallibility and
> > repeating yourself.
>
> That's nonsense. My thoroughness argument amounts to my posting a
> specific methodology that only the most anal-retentive of *assholes*
> could possibly consider "not good enough".
>
A Specific methodology is not necessarily a good methodology.
> YOUR arguments amount to YOU claiming infallibility and repeating
> yourself. I notice you rarely conceding a point, but very frequently
> ignoring evidence or reasoning put forth by me in favor of simply
> repeating the same thing you'd just said. Mere repetition does not
> carry an argument. Logic and a weight of evidence are needed to do
> that.
Really?
>
> > > > I think you are thorough in completely the wrong way.
>
> > > /"\
> > > |\./|
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > |>~<|
> > > | |
> > > /'\| |/'\..
> > > /~\| | | | \
> > > | =[@]= | | \
> > > | | | | | \
> > > F U C K | ~ ~ ~ ~ |` ) Y O U !
> > > | /
> > > \ /
> > > \ /
> > > \ _____ /
> > > |--//''`\--|
> > > | (( +==)) |
> > > |--\_|_//--|
>
> > > :)
>
> > Is that a Timex?
>
> Gold Rolex, actually. The software biz is one of the areas that pays
> well these days.
>
Its a rolec, i can tell, you got ripped off.
> > > > > And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> > > > > subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> > > > > like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> > > > > not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> > > > > insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> > > > > air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> > > > > Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> > > > > occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> > > > > *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> > > > > line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> > > > > should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> > > > > doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> > > > > conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> > > > > degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
> > > > I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
> > > > seq functions.
>
> > > So you're agreeing with me now.
>
> > I never had an opinion on the nature of the documentation, you just
> > seem to want to argue with me about it.
>
> Eh -- if you never had an opinion, why did you start arguing with me
> about it, and why are you continuing to do so? There are really only
> two reasons for you to argue about it. One is you have an opinion of
> your own; the other is it's on someone's behalf. The latter, however,
> would contradict your claim not to be Rich's lap-dog.
>
> So which is it?
>
There are a lot more than two reasons for me to argue with you about
it.
Highlights:
1.) You made a large number of glaring errors in your initial rant.
2.) You're clearly trolling so I figured I'd oblige you. Had nothing
planned this weekend.
3.) Consider it proof by induction that Rich was justified in deleting
your post.
> > > What's the remaining 400 lines of your post for then?
>
> > Mostly quoting you.
>
> You know what I meant. If you've yielded on the main bone of
> contention, why not just do so and then go find something new (and
> preferably more constructive than arguing on usenet) to do?
>
You first.
> > > > > > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > > > > > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > > > > > taking in a conversation.
>
> > > > > There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> > > > > If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> > > > > and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> > > > > a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> > > > > how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> > > > > my post.
>
> > > > > Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> > > > > it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> > > > > one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> > > > > mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> > > > > result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> > > > > voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> > > > > kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> > > > > part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> > > > > words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> > > > > Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> > > > > Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> > > > > or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> > > > > Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
> > > > Tone is an inherent part of language.
>
> > > Spoken language, yes.
>
> > Written language too.
>
> Written language with things like italics and bold available, maybe.
> ASCII, no.
>
> In the meantime, your argument to support your contention that I'm a
> troll still appears to be one that, if it were sound, would also prove
> that Stephen Hawking was a robot, and therefore obviously is *not*
> sound.
>
So I take it you don't read that much?
> > > > Earlier you said my post sounded snarky.
> > > > That is tone.
>
> > > No, it was the wording, mocking something I'd said in a previous post.
>
> > it sounded
>
> No, it didn't. Or if it did, the sound came from another source than
> I, and I am not responsible for it.
>
> > it had tone.
>
> No, it didn't.
>
> > mocking is a tone.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > I'd say your tone is kind of obstinate.
>
> No, it isn't. I don't have a tone. Maybe by ASCII is kind of
> obstinate. It tends to get that way when someone is repeatedly wrong,
> even after I've explained to them why their logic fails them and
> proved that their arguments aren't sound.
>
I consider ASCII more constipated than obstinate.
> > > > > > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > > > > > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > > > > > what works.
>
> > > > > Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> > > > > for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> > > > > Code is my passion.
>
> > > > Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
> > > > way.
> > > > (i.e. technique is wrong).
>
> > > More likely that you are. Definitely, bluntly suggesting that someone
> > > else's "technique is wrong" means your technique is wrong. :)
>
> > No, I'm not the one getting his posts moderated.
>
> You're not posting to a moderated group, so that means nothing.
>
> Furthermore, since it's been clearly established that Rich's actions
> were unfair, his actions do not reflect on me, only on him. If the
> WrexTroll post had been swiftly deleted, you'd have a ghost of a
> chance of using Rich's deletions of my posts as evidence that
> something was wrong with them, but the fact that they are clearly much
> less worthy of deletion than the WrexTroll post, yet lasted a much
> shorter time, proves that Rich's judgment on these matters is not a
> reliable indicator of another poster's quality at all.
>
Asserting the consequent to prove the consequent.
> Basically, your argument has the same problem as two other arguments
> of yours, and a similar reductio-ad-absurdum disproof.
> One argument of yours "proved" democracy and fair trials impossible
> outside anarchies. (Reality: probably just about the opposite,
> impossibly IN anarchies.)
> A second "proved" that Stephen Hawking was a robot.
> This third one "proves" that the WrexTroll post displays better social
> skills than my posts do.
>
Reductio-ad-absurdum only works if the absurd conclusion is the
logical consequent.
(it is only the logical consequent for the third in your list of
three).
> All three of them logically require accepting an absurd conclusion,
> and all three of them are therefore faulty.
>
> > > > > > This doesn't just apply to sex.
>
> > > > > You can't have sex with code. (Pending the invention of a bodysuit
> > > > > with haptics and a USB jack, anyway.)
>
> > > > you can have sex with groupies.
>
> > > Usenet groupies? With what, heavily lubricated key caps? Or thought
> > > waves?
>
> > You're the one who brought up groupies. and source code sex.
>
> I did not. You did, implicitly, by being one of Rich's. Groupies, that
> is. I couldn't venture a guess as to whether you're one of his sex
> partners, not given the limited amount of information presently
> available to me on that topic. :)
>
> > > > > Aside from the questionable use of the word "juxtaposition", consider
> > > > > the analogy to be between "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure group" and "Rich".
> > > > > "Wrexsoul-in-the-clojure-group" *has* apparently been annihilated.
>
> > > > You know what they say, go big or go home.
>
> > > ?
>
> > You know, they say that.
>
> Okay, I'm dismissing your line here as incoherent babble. Moving
> on ...
>
> > > > > > > > I don't understand how one can be so sensitive about being told that
> > > > > > > > he lacks thoroughness.
>
> > > > > > > I wouldn't have been, had the accusation not been in error. Truth be
> > > > > > > told, I was *incensed*; I'd spent over 30 minutes, all told, grepping
> > > > > > > and skimming documentation before giving up on finding the feature in
> > > > > > > there, and then I get told "Being
> > > > > > > able to read is one of the most basic, useful skills in programming.
> > > > > > > Especially if you want to be pompous without being an ass.", called a
> > > > > > > troll, and told I wasn't thorough *enough*???
>
> > > > > > > Name one person you know that would have responded as calmly as I did,
> > > > > > > rather than flying off the handle, under similar circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > Just one!
>
> > > > > > I can name two:
>
> > > > > > Ghandi,
> > > > > > Jesus.
>
> > > > > > :-)
>
> > > > > Amend the above: LIVING person. One of the above is dead, and the
> > > > > other is not only dead but possibly fictitious.
>
> > > > Its not like I named Gandalf and Hiro Protagonist.
>
> > > No, then there'd have been TWO fictitious names on your list.
>
> > I don't see how it being a living person is relevant.
>
> Then you shouldn't care if the car you're in crashes, or any of that
> stuff. :)
>
> > I'm sure there are a number of people who would have responded better
> > than you.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> > How about:
>
> > Ghengis Kahn
>
> You're kidding. He'd have thrown his computer out the window of his
> yurt, had one of his underlings randomly executed, and then stormed
> Rich's country with a horde of Mongol warriors on horseback until they
> called in the National Guard.
>
> > and
> > Giggles the Clown.
>
> Giggles would either manifest behavior worthy of a straitjacket and
> padded room, or else act normal and punch Rich in the nose, I suspect.
>
> > > > > > Synonyms,
>
> > > > > I tried both "fold" and "accum". I didn't know "reduce". I can't try
> > > > > synonyms that never would have occurred to me.
>
> > > > you can with a thesaurus
>
> > > What thesaurus? And why should I need one? Once again, this is
> > > crossing the line into ludicrousland. If you need a thesaurus to find
> > > something in the docs, then whether you admit it or not, those docs
> > > have got a problem.
>
> > Or there is something wrong with you.
>
> Nope. Got my checkup just last week. Clean bill of health.
>
> > > > > > asking in #clojure...
>
> > > > > If that means IRC, I think that would require me to actually install
> > > > > software, and I seem to recall a) IRC software tends to have security
> > > > > holes and b) IRC tends to be chock-full of losers with a love of
> > > > > exploiting such holes. Though perhaps it's changed in the decade or
> > > > > more since I last used it. You definitely risked a winnuke going
> > > > > anywhere near IRC with a Windows computer back then, though.
>
> > > > I stay as far away from windows as possible lately.
>
> > > Well, I'm not about to go eeny meeny miney moe, blow away a partition,
> > > and install a whole new operating system on one of my machines just to
> > > please you. Or Rich. Besides, OS-chauvinism is so last century.
>
> > Your the one who brought up getting win-nuked over IRC.
> > You can't get win-nuked on linux, only win.
>
> You're the one who brought up IRC. I pointed out that I suspected it
> was unsafe. Your expectations appear to require me to either put my
> machine at risk in one way, or put my machine at risk in another way
> to be satisfied. In that case, I think I shall choose not to satisfy
> your expectations, while publicly pointing out (once again) that your
> expectations are ludicrous.
>
> > > > > > For fold, you find the reduce function.
>
> > > > > So now everyone who uses clojure is expected to search this ociweb.com
> > > > > site too? Fine -- I'll accept that if the clojure.org site prominently
> > > > > links to it and says "SEARCH THERE AS WELL AS HERE BEFORE ASKING
> > > > > STUPID QUESTIONS OR SAYING YOU DIDN'T FIND SOMETHING". Until then, I
> > > > > stand by my documented search procedure as thorough-enough-to-pass-
> > > > > reasonable-standards.
>
> > > > Its a better document than the API.
>
> > > That does not reflect very well on the API page, then, does it?
>
> > No I guess not.
>
> All-righty then.
>
> > > > > > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > > > > > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> > > > > Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> > > > > to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
> > > > Then that's good.
>
> > > Not to hear it from Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself, it
> > > isn't. :P
>
> > Who?
>
> Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself. You know, the three
> people that personally attacked me in response to that implementation.
>
> You really shouldn't argue with someone when you've got a memory like
> a sieve, especially if your opponent's is somewhere around "steel
> trap" territory. Sooner or later you'll forget some lie you told and
> tell a different, inconsistent one, and then you'll go down in flames
> with your rudder, engine, and credibility shot full of holes.
>
No seriously, didn't read the original thread.
> > > > > > Cops can carry around assault rifles. I can't.
>
> > > > > Where? Here in the good ol' US of A, cops can carry around handguns.
> > > > > SWAT teams even get to use shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. In
> > > > > hostage situations, they may actually have a sniper rifle or two. But
> > > > > cops carrying around AKs? I don't think so, absent martial law anyway.
>
> > > > No I think they are the little ones. M4s or something.
> > > > (maybe not assault rifles but carbines?)
>
> > > In what jurisdiction? Iran?
>
> > I think L.A.
>
> Ah, the land of the free with advertisements and the home of the brave
> Rodney King beaters. So brave they dared do it right in front of a
> camera! Or is that stupid? It is SUCH a fine line sometimes. :)
>
> > > > > > Yeah, I think my error was trying to use emacs.
> > > > > > I had no problems with SBCL and emacs, but setting up clojure and
> > > > > > emacs with clojure-contrib and stuff nearly gave me an aneurysm.
>
> > > > > Did you try setting up NetBeans? If you really, perversely want to use
> > > > > emacs, you still can; clojure will be on your classpath once the
> > > > > install of enclojure is done, and then can be invoked from the command
> > > > > line or wherever.
>
> > > > I just installed it with eclispe and clojure-dev.
>
> > > Just to be contrary, no doubt.
>
> > > *does double-take*
>
> > Yeah mostly, also i tried netbeans and didn't like it as much as
> > eclipse.
>
> NetBeans never eats your source code.
>
> > I think there is an emacs plugin for it too somewhere so i might dig
> > that up and mix+match stuff. I like the emacs commands.
>
> Somehow, this does not surprise me. Brussels sprouts, too? Cabbage?
> Cubs fan? Or worse -- Senators. As in that hockey team from Canada,
> not the upper house of our esteemed legislature. Or perhaps even the
> Leafs. Or maybe all three.
>
> That would fit right in with leaky arguments, endless repetition,
> emacs commands, and sex with keyboards.
>
> > > Where the heck did you find clojure-dev? I was dithering between
> > > Eclipse and NetBeans and what made the decision for me was that there
> > > was an enclojure download for NetBeans, but just a lot of hot air
> > > about clojure-dev with no apparent downloadable installer anywhere.
>
> > You have to read the documentation to know how to install it.
>
> Catch-22. There is supposed to be a "files" or "downloads" link on a
> project's page, with prominently labeled downloads such as "source",
> "Windows binary", "RedHat binary", and suchlike. You download and
> unzip/run the appropriate one, then read the "readme" file.
Not if you have basic computing skills and an IQ greater than room
temperature.
>
> If you have to read the "readme" file to even find the installer/
> archive on the web page to download it and unzip it and extract the
> "readme" file, then, not to put too fine a point on it, you're fucked.
>
> > > (Similar to the clojure.contrib everyone talks about.)
>
> > clojure.contrib is here:http://code.google.com/p/clojure-contrib/
>
> I meant the lack of an apparent download link.
>
> > I found these things out by reading and talking to a magical gnome
>
> I now suspect I know what causes the disparate problems. Leaky
> arguments, sex with keyboards, emacs commands, endless repetition,
> Brussels sprouts -- now that you've also mentioned magical gnomes, it
> all fits.
>
yep, i'm a kinky sumbitch.
> I guess you had your field guide upside down or something. The little
> "X" beside the pretty picture of the red mushroom with white spots
> means POISONOUS. Well known for causing the munchies, delirium,
> excessive urination, and yes, hallucinations, that one.
>
> You got lucky. Some of the poisonous ones can kill.
>
> > > > Have a little toy project running now.
> > > > Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
>
> > > Let me know when you have a use for super-lazy-seq.
>
> > Sure thing, what's that?
>
> Let me check on whether a memory like a sieve is also a symptom of
> amanita poisoning. I'll get back to you.
Ok bro, be safe.
On Jun 23, 2:24 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:38 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2:31 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 21, 1:31 am, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 5:38 pm, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Wrexsoul <········@bsnow.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:14 am, ACL <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > But yeah, Wikipedia is a good source of synonyms in future cases.
>
> > > > > > The docs aren't on Wikipedia.
>
> > > > > Right, but i'm trying to give you a helpful suggestion of how to
> > > > > search for this sort of thing in the future.
>
> > > > While missing the point: I shouldn't have to search any site other
> > > > than clojure.org.
>
> > > I thought the question was whether you were thorough?
>
> > I was quite thorough in my search of clojure.org.
>
> And your search of the other large % of human knowledge was completely
> incomplete.
Well, of course it was. If I need to find something in clojure's API
docs, I search clojure.org, not the whole world. If I need to find
something in Java's API docs, I search under http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/
-- often, just click in the lower left frame when showing All Classes,
control-F, type part of a class name. Less often, search google for
"foo site:java.sun.com".
These days, unscoped search is virtually useless anyway. There's a lot
of spammy results in most google searches nowadays.
> > > > > > > I mean, I'm sure you could start your own un-moderated clojure google
> > > > > > > group.
> > > > > > > But until you do, RH would be judge, jury and executioner.
>
> > > > > > Your argument could equally be used to support a lack of defendants'
> > > > > > rights in a real criminal court:
>
> > > > > > "I mean, I'm sure you could start your own anarchy on a desert island
> > > > > > somewhere. But until you do, the U.S. government would be judge, jury,
> > > > > > and executioner."
>
> > > > > Is it not?
>
> > > > It's not the jury, no, and then there's the three branches and
> > > > separation of powers and all that to consider.
>
> > > So how does that support the assumption that it argues for a lack of
> > > defendant's rights?
>
> > You argued that Rich having as much power as he did automatically
> > precluded the possibility of that power being wielded wisely, and with
> > checks and balances from other users. The same argument could be used
> > to claim that demoncracies and fair trials were impossible in non-
> > anarchies because the government has as much power as it does. The
> > real world evidence says that the latter thesis is nonsense; a
> > government can have power, yet still be fair and democratic. Therefore
> > your argument must have been flawed.
>
> Slippery slope arguments that ignore the possibility of middle ground
> are not good arguments.
I haven't made any. You have; you argued, in essence, that power
automatically and inevitably, rather than just often, corrupts, and is
somehow impossible to even partially relinquish.
> > > > > unfortunately for you, google groups don't have juries.
>
> > > > Perhaps they should.
>
> > > I think it would get too expensive, and then you'd just end up with
> > > someone that you don't like as judge anyway.
>
> > Expensive? To have a jury trial in a webboard would mean to have both
> > sides present their cases and then have (some of) the uninvolved forum
> > users vote. I don't see where money enters into it. Some forum
> > software (like phpBB, but apparently not Google Groups specifically)
> > even provides direct support for polling the user base.
>
> You've got to pay the jury a stipend and have attorneys for both
> parties.
For a real trial, yes. To poll the users of a forum, no.
> You'd also end up with a lot of useless spam votes about board
> politics
That depends on what was put to a vote, when, and why.
> when all I want to know is how these damn libraries work.
Threads about forum management could probably be ignored easily
enough, or even have their own sub-forum. Google Groups Help is split
up into announcements, is-something-broken, for-beginners,
suggestions, and one or two others. Likewise clojure could have
clojure-meta added as a separate forum for group administrivia, if
there ever was enough to warrant such a thing.
The mere fact that sanctioning a user such as myself would involve
more administrivia would also create a deterrent to frivolous user
sanctions. It probably wouldn't have been worth Rich's bother to start
up a vote whether to sock me for daring to openly disagree with him
not once, but twice in a row, especially given the likelihood of that
vote not going his way. :)
> > > > > > But in the real world, the existence of a government and its having
> > > > > > judges, a prison system, and the like doesn't automatically preclude
> > > > > > having fair trials before juries of one's peers. It depends on the
> > > > > > government. And we generally agree, here in the West, that a
> > > > > > government that does behave dictatorially is a poor government
> > > > > > compared to the alternative.
>
> > > > > Can I be president of the internets then?
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > so we agree the internet is nothing like the us government?
>
> > That is a straw man of your invention.
>
> How can I invent things that you wrote?
You didn't. You invented equating my position to "the internet is
nothing like the us government", which is not anything that I said,
nor does it seem important.
> Blaming me for something stupid you wrote... I don't even know what
> that is...
I didn't write anything stupid. You did, and then attempted to pass it
off as my coinage.
> > > > > > > Would it make the political part off topic?
>
> > > > > > Not when it's internal politics of the group.
>
> > > > > Maybe he doesn't want the group to have internal politics at all?
>
> > > > Too late.
>
> > > Not really, he can just block everyone who tries to give the group
> > > internal politics.
>
> > He, himself, by his very existence, gives the group internal politics,
> > so he'd have to ban himself too.
>
> > Where there's power, there's politics, especially if someone has more
> > power than someone else. Even stripped of any special wheel bits on
> > his Google Groups account, Rich's status as Clojure's primary
> > developer would grant him some effective power.
>
> There are politics and then there are internal politics.
> He can keep the group from having internal politics by not having
> political discussions within the group.
I don't think so.
> Stating a tautology about the nature of groups of people doesn't
> help your argument.
Stating, falsely and with no supporting evidence, that something I
said doesn't help my argument doesn't help your argument.
> > > > > > > Well you have bias too.
>
> > > > > > No, sir, I do not, or at least I'm very good at suppressing it. I
> > > > > > provided objective evidence to support my claims. I have yet to see
> > > > > > yours. All I have seen from you are arguments of two forms:
> > > > > > 1. "You're biased!" which is a fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
> > > > > > 2. "Rich can do whatever he likes!" Technically true, but immaterial
> > > > > > to whether his behavior is malicious, or he could have handled
> > > > > > things better.
>
> > > > > 1.) everyone is biased.
>
> > > > I am not.
>
> > > You have opinions and are not a space robot, therefore you are biased.
>
> > How do you know I'm not a space robot? You'll notice I was careful to
> > word my earlier example involving text-to-speech software so as to
> > state that a robotic voice from such software would not prove that I
> > was a robot, but not the state that I might not nonetheless be one. :)
>
> Ok, so you think you are a space robot and are crazy.
I didn't say that either.
> > > > > It could even be both malicious and good intentioned.
>
> > > > Not logically possible.
>
> > > Yes it is.
>
> > No, it is not.
>
> Thanks for snipping the part about perspective.
It was irrelevant.
I have taken the liberty, by the way, of snipping and otherwise
ignoring a personal attack or two that I found in your post.
> > > You leave out the possibility of people having different perspectives
> > > on the matter.
> > > I can see perfectly clearly how it is either.
>
> > Perhaps you are schizophrenic. I, however, am not, and "good
> > intentioned" and "malicious" are clearly mutually exclusive. Rich
> > can't have had only good intentions, and simultaneously have had bad
> > intentions, when he did what he did. Unless you're arguing that HE
> > might be schizophrenic.
>
> Having complex emotion is not schizophrenia.
Thinking something simultaneously had no ill intentions and had some
ill intentions IS.
> > > > > > > You aren't privy to his thoughts (and its not obvious that there was
> > > > > > > premeditation plotting against you) so you can't really determine
> > > > > > > malice.
>
> > > > > > Nonsense. Deleting a non-objectionable post is inherently a malicious
> > > > > > act. Furthermore, after he'd had 18 hours to cool down he promptly
> > > > > > deleted another attempt to repost it. That goes to premeditation.
>
> > > > > deleting a non-objectionable post requires that it be non
> > > > > objectionable, surely he found something objectionable about it.
>
> > > > What he may or may not have found is irrelevant. The issue at hand is
> > > > whether it was objectionable by a reasonable, objective measure. And
> > > > the inevitable conclusion was:
> > > > 1. It was not advertising.
> > > > 2. It was not abusive/personal attacks.
> > > > 3. It was not off-topic.
> > > > 4. The "WrexTroll" post was certainly MORE objectionable and was
> > > > allowed to stand.
>
> > > And the only reasonable objective person is you?
> > > :)
>
> > This isn't about me. This is about the evidence. I've presented
> > evidence to support my thesis. You have not. "Put up or shut up", as
> > the phrase goes.
>
> You're right, its not about you, its about your gigantic ego.
What ego?
I ask for evidence to support your unlikely thesis that my post was
worse than the "WrexTroll" post and therefore more worthy of deletion.
Instead of supplying any evidence, you change the subject.
If you are not actually going to argue rationally, then there is no
point in continuing this.
> Face it, you haven't posted any serious evidence
I have posted plenty of evidence.
> You've posted a bunch of conjecture mixed in with random accusations
> of impropriety.
I have backed up the "conjecture" and the accusations with actual
evidence. Where is yours?
> > > > > > My thoroughness is not subjective. Objectively, the clock measured 30
> > > > > > minutes or a bit more of time during my search, and I've already
> > > > > > described the procedures I'd used. There is nothing whatsoever
> > > > > > subjective about it. I did, indeed, read near every occurrence in the
> > > > > > docs of "seq", for example. Had a camera been filming me and the video
> > > > > > ended up on YouTube, you'd be able to verify that for yourself. It is
> > > > > > not possible that I subjectively *feel* that I read near every
> > > > > > occurrence of "seq" but someone else can subjectively *feel* that I
> > > > > > had not done so and those would be equally valid. The hypothetical
> > > > > > camera footage would support one and refute one, which is a good test
> > > > > > of whether something is really subjective or is objective.
>
> > > > > Ok, But you didn't check any external sources
>
> > > > Of course not -- external sources are entirely irrelevant to the
> > > > question of how thorough I was in searching the clojure API docs. The
> > > > only documents relevant to that question, by definition, are ...
> > > > drumroll ... the clojure API docs.
>
> > > 'Be more thorough' has meaning outside of the clojure API.
>
> > Not when the discussion was specifically about how thorough I had been
> > in searching ... drumroll ... the clojure API docs. My thoroughness or
> > not at searching other things never arose as an issue.
>
> How would you define 'be more thorough' using only the clojure api?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't get much more thorough than
how thorough I was, using only the clojure api docs. Hence my
contention that my thoroughness should have been above reproach.
> The clojure API is not recursively defined, therefore it requires
> outside knowledge to understand.
>
> You have not demonstrated the requisite knowledge to understand it.
Now you're simply baiting and using personal attacks. I think we're
done here. It doesn't look like you have any more remotely-cogent
arguments to support your side, yet for some reason you're continuing
to argue as if you somehow still had a case.
Face it. The evidence is against you. Even the fact that you're
grasping at straws like the above ad hominems is a sign that you've
run out of real ammunition. No more bullets; nothing left to sling at
your opponent but mud.
Mud, of course, won't convince anyone else that you're right and I'm
wrong.
> > The rhetorical trick you are now using in your misguided defense of
> > Rich is that of spuriously altering the scope. It's quite a common one
> > -- X says the sky is blue, Y says it's not, X takes a photo out the
> > window, posts it, and says "Look -- blue!", and Y, back against the
> > wall, argues that the sky is sometimes grey, sometimes black with
> > white speckles, sometimes lots of colors, and sometimes white. This
> > makes X's statement look wrong, which if it was intended to be fully
> > general, perhaps it would be, but X was talking about the sky's color
> > at a particular place and time and had supported his thesis with
> > evidence, so Y's tactic should not fool any but the most unintelligent
> > members of the audience.
>
> I don't see how it is a good argument that a person using clojure is
> restricted to the clojure site.
Did I say that they were? Wow -- that's what, three times today that
you've put words in my mouth? Four? You ARE getting desperate!
> Requiring that everything you could possibly want to know about
> programming clojure be located on the clojure.org website is not only
> ridiculous, it is also a heinously inefficient duplication of effort.
I am not requiring anything of the sort, as I'm sure you know already
if you've actually read my posts. What I have intimated is that:
1. If it's part of the core clojure api, it should be documented at
clojure.org.
2. Said bit of documentation should turn up as a result of search
queries that are likely to be relevant, e.g. one for "seq" in
the case of "reduce".
3. If said bit of documentation doesn't, or is absent entirely, then
you can not reasonably blame a user for not finding it.
If you are going to continue to argue that I fucked something up, then
you are going to have to convincingly argue against one or more of
points 1, 2, and 3 immediately above. However, I find it unlikely that
you can muster a plausible argument against a single one of them. Most
likely, you won't, and will instead use some kind of fallacious
reasoning to reject one of them, or to argue that somehow in this
instance none of them applied, or perhaps just fall all the way down
to grade-school tactics like namecalling.
> > > > Furthermore, if users need to check external sources to use the API
> > > > docs effectively, then those API docs have a usability problem
> > > > regardless.
>
> > > You can't go looking at api docs
>
> > It's a free country. I'll look at whatever I please, so long as it's
> > not an invasion of anyone's privacy.
>
> And you'll get flamed for being not thorough.
Even though I was thorough?
> > > Had you not known what 'fold' or 'accum' meant, you would have had to
> > > learn them somewhere?
>
> > From the documentation of whatever had those functions, I would hope.
> > A search for "accumulate" might find the phrase "accumulate a result
> > over a list or other sequence", say, in well-written documentation.
>
> That's a recursive definition, what if I don't know what accumulate
> means?
Then you should ask your sixth-grade teacher. FFS, there's a
difference between expecting something to be documented, and said
documentation to mention relevant things that people will likely
search for, and expecting hand-holding.
> > If the documentation of "fold" didn't explain what "fold" did in plain
> > English somewhere, and maybe provide a couple of examples, then it
> > would be poor documentation, whereas if it did, a relevant search
> > should tend to find it; and thus my point is made.
>
> if you explain in plain English it clearly doesn't follow that a
> simple arbitrary textual search will find it.
Will you quit your constant specious arguing?? I've won and you know
it. I simply suggested that searching for "seq", for instance, should
find everything that operates upon sequences that's in the core API.
I've demonstrated that currently that particular instance isn't the
case. Logically, you must either argue convincingly that it shouldn't
be, or else be quiet or admit defeat. Any other action on your part
would be irrational.
> > > > So not only haven't you torpedoed my "I was thorough!" argument,
> > > > you've also not even *scratched* my "the docs could be improved in
> > > > thus-and-such ways" argument, which in the larger scheme of things is
> > > > the more important one by far.
>
> > > Your thoroughness argument amounts to you claiming infallibility and
> > > repeating yourself.
>
> > That's nonsense. My thoroughness argument amounts to my posting a
> > specific methodology that only the most anal-retentive of *assholes*
> > could possibly consider "not good enough".
>
> A Specific methodology is not necessarily a good methodology.
Mine was both. It was also an entirely typical methodology: when
looking for API, people grep the API docs. That is what every one of
my coworkers does, and everyone else I know in the software business.
Either we're ALL frakking morons, or you are for continuing this
ridiculous argument!
> > YOUR arguments amount to YOU claiming infallibility and repeating
> > yourself. I notice you rarely conceding a point, but very frequently
> > ignoring evidence or reasoning put forth by me in favor of simply
> > repeating the same thing you'd just said. Mere repetition does not
> > carry an argument. Logic and a weight of evidence are needed to do
> > that.
>
> Really?
Really.
> > > > \ _____ /
> > > > |--//''`\--|
> > > > | (( +==)) |
> > > > |--\_|_//--|
>
> > > > :)
>
> > > Is that a Timex?
>
> > Gold Rolex, actually. The software biz is one of the areas that pays
> > well these days.
>
> Its a rolec, i can tell, you got ripped off.
From some ASCII art? Bull.
> > > > > > And anyone expecting greater thoroughness than I displayed has their
> > > > > > subjective opinion on how thorough people should be *way* an outlier,
> > > > > > like someone who even finds 90 degrees to be cool weather, and should
> > > > > > not be making decisions for everybody, like who gets banned for being
> > > > > > insufficiently thorough or how warm the weather has to be before the
> > > > > > air conditioning is turned on in a public facility they maintain.
>
> > > > > > Therefore, *if* Rich agrees with you that even a search near every
> > > > > > occurrence of "seq" in the docs wasn't good enough and I should have
> > > > > > *read* absolutely *everything* before ever sitting down to write a
> > > > > > line of code (and at this point the evidence is equivocal), then he
> > > > > > should step down as group manager as in my opinion he isn't fit to be
> > > > > > doing the banning there. Whether I'd trust him to control the air
> > > > > > conditioning in my bank branch depends on whether he also considers 90
> > > > > > degrees to be "cool weather" or not. :)
>
> > > > > I think reasonably you should have found it by searching all of the
> > > > > seq functions.
>
> > > > So you're agreeing with me now.
>
> > > I never had an opinion on the nature of the documentation, you just
> > > seem to want to argue with me about it.
>
> > Eh -- if you never had an opinion, why did you start arguing with me
> > about it, and why are you continuing to do so? There are really only
> > two reasons for you to argue about it. One is you have an opinion of
> > your own; the other is it's on someone's behalf. The latter, however,
> > would contradict your claim not to be Rich's lap-dog.
>
> > So which is it?
>
> There are a lot more than two reasons for me to argue with you about
> it.
> Highlights:
> 1.) You made a large number of glaring errors in your initial rant.
I did not. You may have thought so, but I've shot down in flames every
single argument you've put forth thus far. With actual evidence, i.e.
bullets not mud. You had a few blunt arrows in your quiver, shot them
all, and now you're just slinging mud. You have lost.
> 2.) You're clearly trolling so I figured I'd oblige you. Had nothing
> planned this weekend.
I am not trolling. I am beginning, however, to wonder whether YOU are.
You appear to be impervious to logic, a common troll trait. On the
other hand, making controversial drive-by posts and then just lurking
and watching the fireworks is more traditional troll behavior than
arguing on and on relentlessly even after running out of ammo and
being proven short a clue or three.
> 3.) Consider it proof by induction that Rich was justified in deleting
> your post.
There is no such proof, because he clearly was not justified.
Certainly you cannot argue that he was justified in deleting it
WITHOUT also deleting the WrexTroll post.
> > > > What's the remaining 400 lines of your post for then?
>
> > > Mostly quoting you.
>
> > You know what I meant. If you've yielded on the main bone of
> > contention, why not just do so and then go find something new (and
> > preferably more constructive than arguing on usenet) to do?
>
> You first.
No. I'll stop when you stop. If you make another post making various
fatuous accusations and other nonsense, I'll make another disproving
it all and pointing out to the world how desperate you are to somehow
avoid being perceived as having lost this argument. And also noting
that you apparently have a childish compulsion to have the last word.
> > > > > > > I mean, generally when someone accuses you of trolling;
> > > > > > > it is a good time to re-evaluate the approach and tone that you are
> > > > > > > taking in a conversation.
>
> > > > > > There's that "tone" thing again! Remember, all I am posting is ASCII.
> > > > > > If when you read it you hear a voice in your head saying the words,
> > > > > > and that voice has any particular tone, that is actually *your* voice,
> > > > > > a figment of *your* imagination, and I can't be held responsible for
> > > > > > how it says whatever it says, only for the sequence of ASCII codes in
> > > > > > my post.
>
> > > > > > Thinking I'm a troll for this "tone" thing is, when you think about
> > > > > > it, exactly as silly as thinking I'm a robot after feeding the text of
> > > > > > one of my posts through text-to-speech software and getting a
> > > > > > mechanical, Stephen Hawking-esque voice. The robotic voice is the
> > > > > > result of the text-to-speech software, not my true voice, just as any
> > > > > > voice you project onto usenet posts you read is the result of some
> > > > > > kind of software in your brain, rather than my true voice. If that
> > > > > > part of your brain that summons up imaginary voices to go along with
> > > > > > words you read is bothering you, you won't fix that by hassling random
> > > > > > Usenet posters whose ASCII it read out loud to you.
>
> > > > > > Not that I know how you would fix it. Since it's akin to visualizing
> > > > > > or otherwise imagining, perhaps just try to imagine it differently?
> > > > > > Yeah, I know, sometimes easier said than done.
>
> > > > > Tone is an inherent part of language.
>
> > > > Spoken language, yes.
>
> > > Written language too.
>
> > Written language with things like italics and bold available, maybe.
> > ASCII, no.
>
> > In the meantime, your argument to support your contention that I'm a
> > troll still appears to be one that, if it were sound, would also prove
> > that Stephen Hawking was a robot, and therefore obviously is *not*
> > sound.
>
> So I take it you don't read that much?
I read plenty. How is your erroneous conjecture above the least bit
relevant to your earlier argument, or the fact that it's full of
holes?
> > > I'd say your tone is kind of obstinate.
>
> > No, it isn't. I don't have a tone. Maybe my ASCII is kind of
> > obstinate. It tends to get that way when someone is repeatedly wrong,
> > even after I've explained to them why their logic fails them and
> > proved that their arguments aren't sound.
>
> I consider ASCII more constipated than obstinate.
Another non-sequitur response.
> > > > > > > Perhaps your technique is wrong?
> > > > > > > A lot of the time it is good to try a few different things and see
> > > > > > > what works.
>
> > > > > > Are you suggesting I want groupies, and should try being an asshole
> > > > > > for a while to see if I acquire a retinue? Nah, not really interested.
> > > > > > Code is my passion.
>
> > > > > Idk what you want, perhaps you are a nice guy who comes off the wrong
> > > > > way.
> > > > > (i.e. technique is wrong).
>
> > > > More likely that you are. Definitely, bluntly suggesting that someone
> > > > else's "technique is wrong" means your technique is wrong. :)
>
> > > No, I'm not the one getting his posts moderated.
>
> > You're not posting to a moderated group, so that means nothing.
>
> > Furthermore, since it's been clearly established that Rich's actions
> > were unfair, his actions do not reflect on me, only on him. If the
> > WrexTroll post had been swiftly deleted, you'd have a ghost of a
> > chance of using Rich's deletions of my posts as evidence that
> > something was wrong with them, but the fact that they are clearly much
> > less worthy of deletion than the WrexTroll post, yet lasted a much
> > shorter time, proves that Rich's judgment on these matters is not a
> > reliable indicator of another poster's quality at all.
>
> Asserting the consequent to prove the consequent.
No, you misunderstand the structure of the above paragraph. First I
mentioned that it's been clearly established that Rich's actions were
unfair, and used that to show that you cannot therefore use the fact
that he deleted one of my posts as evidence of any sort of deficiency
on my part. Then, I reiterated my proof that his actions WERE unfair,
in case you were of a mind to futilely dispute that for the umpteenth
time. That proof does not assume that his actions were unfair. It uses
as premises only the fact that one post was deleted promptly, the fact
that another was not, and the nature of the contents of those two
posts, and the assumption that Rich Hickey did the deleting (which
does not seem implausible, and is also irrelevant to the couplet --
even if someone else did the deleting, whoever it was was still being
unfair, and consequently the deletion of my post is not evidence of
"badness" of some kind on my part).
Your arguments are weak and have been shredded quite thoroughly. Are
you ready to give up, or are you thirsty for more?
> > Basically, your argument has the same problem as two other arguments
> > of yours, and a similar reductio-ad-absurdum disproof.
> > One argument of yours "proved" democracy and fair trials impossible
> > outside anarchies. (Reality: probably just about the opposite,
> > impossibly IN anarchies.)
> > A second "proved" that Stephen Hawking was a robot.
> > This third one "proves" that the WrexTroll post displays better social
> > skills than my posts do.
>
> Reductio-ad-absurdum only works if the absurd conclusion is the
> logical consequent.
And it is. You made an argument that it was IMPOSSIBLE for people to
be treated fairly in the clojure group. I used the same argument to
"prove" that fair trials were impossible inside the United States of
America. So, either fair trials are impossible in the United States of
America or the form of your argument is fallacious. I maintain that
the latter is true, and therefore that you have failed to prove that
it is impossible for people to be treated fairly in the clojure group.
Your second argument purported to "prove" that I was a troll, somehow,
on the basis of a perceived "tone of voice" in my posts. I pointed out
that that tone of voice originates not in my posts, but in the
reader's head when they read it. This is exactly the same as if you
had used the sound of Stephen Hawking's voder to "prove" that Hawking
was a robot -- in both cases you're using the sound of a voice that is
reading a man's words, but is not that man's own voice, in an attempt
to prove something about that man, with the inevitable hilariously
erroneous results.
Your third argument boiled down to "WrexSoul had a post deleted by a
moderator somewhere, and therefore WrexSoul is a troll/is otherwise
bad". That argument has the unstated assumption that all such
deletions are well-deserved, coming as they do from unbiased, fair,
and impartial moderators. That assumption, if true, would require that
somehow the WrexTroll post was, from an unbiased, fair, and impartial
perspective, less worthy of deletion than the post of mine that's at
issue. This absurd conclusion disproves the assumption, and therefore
torpedoes your third argument.
You cannot weasel out of it by starting to suddenly throw fancy terms
around. My logic is undeniable, whereas yours is just plain faulty.
> > > > > > > I understand and appreciate the desire for self reliance, but its a
> > > > > > > new language, and sometimes you just have to ask.
>
> > > > > > Yet strangely enough I didn't have to ask, because I was easily able
> > > > > > to implement the "missing" functionality myself.
>
> > > > > Then that's good.
>
> > > > Not to hear it from Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself, it
> > > > isn't. :P
>
> > > Who?
>
> > Sean Devlin, Dylan Somebody, or Rich himself. You know, the three
> > people that personally attacked me in response to that implementation.
>
> > You really shouldn't argue with someone when you've got a memory like
> > a sieve, especially if your opponent's is somewhere around "steel
> > trap" territory. Sooner or later you'll forget some lie you told and
> > tell a different, inconsistent one, and then you'll go down in flames
> > with your rudder, engine, and credibility shot full of holes.
>
> No seriously, didn't read the original thread.
Their posts were mentioned, and at least one of them was linked to, in
this thread.
Furthermore, if you never read the original thread, you have even less
basis for making any kind of worthwhile judgment about what happened
in it or about any of its participants. You're arguing from a state of
profound ignorance. Which does explain a lot about the number of
errors you're making.
> > > > Where the heck did you find clojure-dev? I was dithering between
> > > > Eclipse and NetBeans and what made the decision for me was that there
> > > > was an enclojure download for NetBeans, but just a lot of hot air
> > > > about clojure-dev with no apparent downloadable installer anywhere.
>
> > > You have to read the documentation to know how to install it.
>
> > Catch-22. There is supposed to be a "files" or "downloads" link on a
> > project's page, with prominently labeled downloads such as "source",
> > "Windows binary", "RedHat binary", and suchlike. You download and
> > unzip/run the appropriate one, then read the "readme" file.
>
> Not if you have basic computing skills and an IQ greater than room
> temperature.
This is more mudslinging in lieu of rational argumentation. I think
we're pretty much done here. I may not bother to respond to your next
post, simply because it's clear from this one that you've pretty much
run out of arguments worth actually rebutting, or even dignifying with
a response.
> > > I found these things out by reading and talking to a magical gnome
>
> > I now suspect I know what causes the disparate problems. Leaky
> > arguments, sex with keyboards, emacs commands, endless repetition,
> > Brussels sprouts -- now that you've also mentioned magical gnomes, it
> > all fits.
>
> yep, i'm a kinky sumbitch.
>
> > I guess you had your field guide upside down or something. The little
> > "X" beside the pretty picture of the red mushroom with white spots
> > means POISONOUS. Well known for causing the munchies, delirium,
> > excessive urination, and yes, hallucinations, that one.
>
> > You got lucky. Some of the poisonous ones can kill.
>
> > > > > Have a little toy project running now.
> > > > > Runs like hot butter dripping down my chin. very nice :-)
>
> > > > Let me know when you have a use for super-lazy-seq.
>
> > > Sure thing, what's that?
>
> > Let me check on whether a memory like a sieve is also a symptom of
> > amanita poisoning. I'll get back to you.
>
> Ok bro, be safe.
Wrexsoul wrote:
> Particularly, Rich Hickey (yes, that is apparently his name) appears
> to have become censorious and dictatorial, unwilling to abide
> disagreement, even polite and reasoned disagreement, and quite willing
> to attempt to forcibly muzzle critics.
>
....
> The only thing "wrong" with the above post, as far as I can tell, was
> that it disagreed with Rich Hickey instead of bowing to his ever-so-
> superior wisdom.
>
> Rich apparently has a
> very strong preference for having the last word, and is quite willing
> to employ his unfair advantage as group manager to get it,
> If anyone knows of a place for discussing clojure (possibly here; it
> is a Lisp after all) that provides a better reception for people who
> are uninterested in personal power politics ...
I'm sorry, I thought you just implied you are uninterested in personal
politics. Oh, f*ck, you did. Well, thanks for raising the bar on
asinity, maybe I can sneak under now.
kt
Wrexsoul wrote:
> The following nonabusive post was attempted three times, at widely
> separated intervals...
I am on the Clojure list and received several repeated near-identical posts
from you, none of which were constructive. If you keep reposting the same
thing for no apparent reason then, of course, you can expect to be
silenced.
In this case, you asked a very basic question in a slightly inflammatory
way. While it would have been nice for the other members to be more
tolerant of you (although it is your duty to ensure that you do not require
tolerating), some chose not to be.
Frankly, I'd blame everyone involved including yourself. If you have other
such very simple and generic questions you may find it more productive to
ask them either in c.l.lisp or c.l.functional. People are generally much
more tolerant of abuse on usenet than on mailing lists.
Out of curiousity, in what functional language is fold called "accum"?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u
On Jun 19, 4:46 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Wrexsoul wrote:
> > The following nonabusive post was attempted three times, at widely
> > separated intervals...
>
> I am on the Clojure list and received several repeated near-identical posts
> from you, none of which were constructive.
I don't agree that my defending myself from a false accusation of non-
thoroughness is not constructive, or that raising the issue of
documentation quality is not constructive.
> If you keep reposting the same thing for no apparent reason then,
> of course, you can expect to be silenced.
No. Only if I post off-charter, which I did not.
> In this case, you asked a very basic question
I didn't ask any question at all, actually.
> Frankly, I'd blame everyone involved including yourself. If you have other
> such very simple and generic questions you may find it more productive to
> ask them either in c.l.lisp or c.l.functional. People are generally much
> more tolerant of abuse on usenet than on mailing lists.
I have not been a source of abuse.
> Out of curiousity, in what functional language is fold called "accum"?
The previous ones I'd used called it "fold". I was thinking at the
time, though, specifically of accumulating sums and products over
seqs.
Wrexsoul wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:46 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> Wrexsoul wrote:
>> > The following nonabusive post was attempted three times, at widely
>> > separated intervals...
>>
>> I am on the Clojure list and received several repeated near-identical
>> posts from you, none of which were constructive.
>
> I don't agree that my defending myself from a false accusation of non-
> thoroughness is not constructive...
If you were thorough, how did you manage to miss this:
http://clojure.org/api#toc476
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u
On Jun 20, 12:14 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Wrexsoul wrote:
> > I don't agree that my defending myself from a false accusation of non-
> > thoroughness is not constructive...
>
> If you were thorough, how did you manage to miss this:
>
> http://clojure.org/api#toc476
I already explained how: it fails to mention "seq" anywhere, and
that's how it managed to be missed by my entirely-reasonable search.
With hindsight, it's easy to think of better search strategies, but
that proves nothing. Hindsight is always 20/20.