On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > David E Jones wrote: >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes >>>> that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really >>>> important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or >>>> proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward >>>> compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't >>>> do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong >>>> statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you >>>> can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those >>>> outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue >>>> against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful >>>> they might be. >>>> >>>> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as >>>> long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never >>>> have behaved this way. Any challengers? >>>> >>>> -Not David >>> Gah, I hate you now. >> >> It had to happen sooner or later! ;) > > Well, that's great. You are even funnier. Quoting just the 'bad' > part of the mail, that in context, was funny, but now, if someone > reads this out of order, makes you look like a god, and me look like a > moron. > > Maybe I should give you more ammo to do this.
You have an interesting way of looking at things. I guess I should STFU. -David
