David E Jones wrote: > 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.
I was still trying to be funny.
