On Sunday, 23 December 2018 at 09:36:19 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2018-12-23 at 08:08 +0000, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: […]
This questioning of iOS is so removed from reality that it
makes me question if you are qualified to comment on this
matter at all. iOS is the largest consumer software platform
that is still growing, as it's estimated to bring in twice the
revenue of google's Play store (that doesn't count other
Android app stores, but they wouldn't make up the gap):
Fair enough I have no interest in iOS at all. But you must
agree that you are clearly so far removed from the reality of
putting on technical conferences generally, that you are not
qualified to make assertions such as "conferences are a dead
form".
You could make various arguments for why they're still having
less and less conferences, as my second link above listing
them does. But to argue that iOS is not doing well is so
ludicrous that it suggests you don't know much about these
tech markets.
Ludicrous is a good description of the entire situation in this
thread. You are making assertions as though they are facts,
working on the principle that if you shout long enough and loud
enough, people will stop disagreeing. A classic technique.
[…]
Yes, the proof is there: the conference is dying. You simply
don't want to admit it.
This is just assertions with no data and thus is a religious
position. And I know conferences are thriving, you just do not
want to admit that.
This seems to be a religious issue for you, with your bizzare
assertions above, so I'll stop engaging with you now.
No it is you that has faith in the death of conferences, I am
involved in the reality of conferences being a relevant thing
that people want to attend. Just because you do not want to go
to conferences doesn't give you the right to try and stop
others from doing so.
If you are going to stop ranting on this, I think that will
make a lot of people very happy. The idea of this email list is
to announce things, not debate things. Also on the debating
lists the idea is to have a collaborative not combative debate
about things. That includes if some people want to do something
they should be allowed to do it and not be harangued from the
wings. If people want to have a DConf, it is not your position
to tell them they cannot.
Your statements above are so ridiculous that they refute
themselves, no need for me to do so. :)
As for your final ridiculous characterization that I'm
"ranting/haranguing" people on this matter, I have only ever
presented evidence and reasons for why the DConf format doesn't
make sense. If that's "ranting" to you, it's clear you don't
understand reasoned debate.
In this thread, all I've asked is why all those reasons were
ignored, as Mike never gave any arguments for why those reasons
aren't worth heeding. Walter's response suggests he never read my
suggestions or reasons in the first place.
Nobody is telling "anyone they cannot," as though any of us have
that power. Rather, I'm trying to figure out how this decision
was made, in the face of all the reasons given and almost none
given for maintaining the status quo.