Malicious nomsense

[chromatic]

<raiph> chromatic summarizes that he said in dec 2010 "don't do nom, not needed, will take too long".

Complete nonsense.

(You also elided—whether from the discussion or what you told Patrick—other pertinent details I've explained about what I expected from Rakudo.)

If you're not going to do me the courtesy of reading and understanding what I've written, please do everyone the courtesy of not spreading falsehoods, especially to other people, especially where I hear about them after the fact and can't rebut that nonsense immediately.

You're of course welcome to summarize (in this case, very wrongly) what you think I said provided you disclaim it as your (wrong) opinion, but putting it in quotes? As if I'd ever thought that, let alone said or written it? That's malicious and libelous.

Shame on you.

[raiph]

I am sorry chromatic. I'll understand if this isn't believed, but I did not intend to misrepresent your view. Far from it. My intent in the chat was to ensure Patrick responded to what seemed to me to be criticisms you were making that seemed to warrant a response: ignoring your warnings, unnecessary regressions, and broken commitments.

I clearly screwed up with the quotes. I had pretty much quit posting on the Internet for a decade, and I am clearly making mistakes as I reconnect. The realtime nature of IRC means I didn't review what I was doing. I realize that this will be hard to believe but what I meant was something akin to "I would summarize chromatic said ...".

Anyhow, that's such a monumental cockup that it's obvious to me that I need to shutup. I'll let Patrick know your response and quit posting here. Thanks PerlMonks for this resource. I will return to reading and not writing.

[chromatic]

I accept your apology, and I respect that it's sincere and straightforward.

I will return to reading and not writing.

You don't have to do that. All I ask is that you quote me properly if you must quote me.