Re^18: What is "aggressive" argument? (shouting, insults)

[BrowserUk]

You clearly started the shouting.

That's not "shouting", it is strong emphasis. You cannot apply volume to the written word despite the hoary old internet newbie-bashing meme.

Strongly emphasised because, from history I knew that he has a habit of "missing" important information.

Vis. Despite that strong emphasis, just a few posts later he accuses me of So you knew it was thread safe, but decided to try to catch me in a non-existent lie instead saying so? wtf?

And there it is. I could go on and refute that your other out-of-context quotes are insults. I could suggest that they are simply making a strong case in prelude to my polite and respectfully asking him to carefully review his assertions.

Which, when quoted in full reads:

Which makes your unfounded speculation: FUD. And, given that it is coming from you, a usually reliable and knowledgeable source, makes it dangerous and significant FUD. Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD.

So please, demonstrate your good intent by either:

1. demonstrating a segfault using one of your original three perl statements.
2. withdrawing the FUD.

Makes for a completely different reading from that which you have manipulated.

Unfounded--no foundation; no evidence to suggest truth--therefore speculation, will (whether intended or otherwise), create "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". FUD (despite peoples reading of it), is not rude, or insulting.

Given ikegami's well deserved reputation for accuracy, it becomes significant.

And for anyone who knows it to be "unfounded speculation", and knows that he has sufficient knowledge of threads(*) and locking to have felt able to write a tutorial on the subject: Threads: why locking is required when using shared variables, then "Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD", is a reasonable conclusion that he might seek to avert.

So, what you read as the "opening of hostilities", I read now, and meant at the time, to be a desperate attempt to make the case for him to seek to verify his own assertions or rescind them. As much for his own benefit as for any gain I might get from it.

I'm not the author nor maintainer of threads. Just an enthusiastic user who sees the value they bring--especially to platforms that don't have fork. For example the simplicity--despite the rough edge--of Re: Windows, threads and IPC::Open3 compared to the complexity of IPC::Run, and even this. Their value in enabling this compared with this.

Demonstration means "show", "prove". On a code site, that means code. His time-line diagram is not a demonstration by any meaning of the term. The fact that it came 6 posts after he first claimed to have made it, just re-enforces the issue.

(*)This is perlmonks! There is only one form of threads available to Perl and they are iThreads. So I absolutely refute in the strongest possible terms the need to distinguish between those terms in this place. The module is called threads. When someone comes here asking about threads, they are by implication and specifically, discussing that module, and its properties. Your attempt to bend this into a "talking past each other" situation is, as politely as I know how to say it:bunkum.

As for "the merest modicum of rational thought being: really, really, really dumb. Objectively much, much worse of an insult., Wrong again. It simply means he didn't, on this occasion, think before posting.

And I never said that acting dumb was a big insult. Just the first. Which, despite your attempts to re-write history through selective quoting(*) and creative re-interpretation, it was.

That's why I didn't quote. I linked--with paraphrasing to show my reading of events, but linked so anyone, if there are any such, that care to read it in its original context, could.

And yes, I do see your re-intervention in this discussion as yet another attempt for you to forward your agenda. Not world+dog, just Tye being Tye.

Even once you get into your luke-warn praise of me, you still can't resist the urge to 'apply Tye' to the narrative by slipping into referring to me as if you were not replying to me directly, by talking about me in the third person. Like I say, you no longer even realise you are doing it.

So now, despite my resolution to the contrary, I've replied to (the real) you, it will be the last time.

Belated thought: I didn't even get around to discussing your role in raising the temperature in that thread and this thread and the other thread.