Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90634
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.123 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:16:51 -0500
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <D2BC64C5.6A4D1%fsb@thefsb.org>
Thread-Topic: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to
 ideas"
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net>
 <56948002.1080802@gmail.com>
 <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
 <56958530.2090903@gmail.com>
 <5696A315.9020509@thefsb.org>
 <5696C3AC.7030809@gmail.com>
 <D2BC3356.6A42C%fsb@thefsb.org>
 <5696E1C7.9070101@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5696E1C7.9070101@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to
 ideas"
From: fsb@thefsb.org (Tom Worster)

On 1/13/16, 6:46 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>> Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
>> John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
>> to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
>> else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but
>>if
>
>I don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
>reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
>we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
>I don't see how collaboration would be possible.

Collaboration is perfectly compatible with relative epistemology. All we
need is some consensus on useful descriptions of reality. Just because I
allow the possibility that someone can have a conflicting appreciation of
such-and-such from mine, and I allow the possibility of doubt over which
is better, doesn't mean that all appreciations, including delusional one,
are worth considering. Far from it.


>> wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation
>>of
>> me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.
>
>No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
>for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently.

I didn't think so. That's why I took up your request.


>You can build a
>narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
>determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
>nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
>improve anything.

Well, never say never. But this was in any case an exercise. At least,
that's how I approached it.


>I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
>enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".

I never advocated enforcing civility. That's a bad idea. If you didn't get
this, it means I failed to make my point.


>One can blow literally *anything* out of proportion and present it as an
>attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.

Many things? Yes, obviously you can. "Literally anything"? Don't think so.
Some things are really hard to blow out of proportion and present as an
attack or insult. Statements can any anywhere between really easy to
really hard to blow out of proportion, which is kinda the whole point I'm
making.


>> However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest
>>your
>
>My purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
>finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
>impression is there's none.

Actually such will *was* there. Still is, in fact. I attempted to present
a spectrum of interpretations of a few of your lines as a practical
illustration of how we have choices in how things can be said. It was
probably my mistake to attempt to answer the same question that I chose to
analyze. I think this made it seem like I was all bent out of shape over
your email when I was not at all. I had to work to come up with that
analysis.



> OK then, moving on to code fixes.

Tom