Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90639
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.91 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:37:18 -0500
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <D2BD0D4A.6A53E%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)

Hi Stas,

Sorry for the follow up but I only noticed this after I woke up this
morning.

Amusing irony! In this instance, I tried to make a technical argument
about language and you picked up the wrong end of the stick and blew up
out of proportion because I didn't choose words that make clear me purpose.

If I can get a smile out of Internals, I just gotta take it.

That's all. I have to concentrate on other things today.

Tom


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.
>
>> 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. 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.
>
>I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
>enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
>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.
>
>> 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. OK then, moving on to code fixes.
>
>-- 
>Stas Malyshev
>smalyshev@gmail.com