Choosing not to talk is not the same as not knowing.
Sorry to have been the cause for the following argument. I didn't mean my remark to be any sort of accusation or anything like that. I thought of it as being more on the line of "well there are so many issues and so much active development that it may even be hard to know which issues was one considering only a relatively moderate amount of time ago", which is what your words suggested me too. And I also wanted to underline that the positive thing in all this is that active development does take place. All in all, however, you have my public apologies if my comment sounded offensive.
| [reply] |
Your post wasn't in any way offensive, I just wanted to clarify that there were definitely causes for concern 10 months or so ago. Also, that whilst I can remember bits an pieces of them, It would require re-reading the fora and other material to recall the detail, and that I have no knowledge of how things have progressed since.
As for your causing the argument. You didn't. That responsibility lies entirely elsewhere.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Choosing not to talk is not the same as not knowing.
Not participating in the project, admitting to not following the project, and choosing to say anyway "I don't think the project will succeed but I'm not going to tell you why" is a fairly gutless way to snipe from the sidelines.
| [reply] |
How about if I did take part?
How about if my (real) name appeared in the credits list? And all over the discussion forums? If, after taking a good deal of time trying to convey my concerns with the project, and supporting others when they expressed their concerns, it became obvious to all that those concerns were concidered unimportant or trivial or simply too far from where those with influence wanted to go, I backed away. And when those that did seems to share my concerns felt they had no other course but to walk away, I decided that it was a lost cause? What then? Is keeping my own council still "gutless"?
Update:
"I don't think the project will succeed but I'm not going to tell you why"
Also, I never said that. Nearly a year ago I agreed with another monk that I didn't think Parrot would succeed. And a couple of hours ago I declined to enter into technical debate about a subject I am no longer up to date on with someone whom appears to delight in knocking Perl.
Had anyone been interested back then, or if anyone was seriously interested in my opinion now--then a private msg asking for that opinion would be the right approach.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
