Asp Forum - mmmmmmmmmmm ruby-talk

Underbar Underbar

10/31/2004 5:42:00 AM

I've been thinking to myself, and what someone else
said, put together what a couple people said to come
out to an all out systematic thinking process which
made me uneasy about the people currently subscribed
on
Ruby-Talk.

When you do ignore someone, you certainly don't
announce it. Its provoking and its like beating an
animal with a stick. Its not just going to sit there
and let you beat it with the stick. About what Austin
said earlier about waiting 15 min(which isn't enough
time for even God to have levels of temperature
decrease), and then it occurred to me late at night
when I was about to go to sleep. The people who
responded were just as childish as I was making the
responses. I forgive the ones who didn't read the
conversation from the start.. and maybe a couple
others just because they are Chad's buddy. I can't
expect a friend let some other friend get beat up just
because he was wrong, its just not compatible with
human logic. From a perpective long in computers,
someone is more likely to argue("troll") back to the
other person if there are no restrictions like on IRC.
It seems to be some type of want to humiliate someone
in front of more people. The people who talk bad about
me on this mailing list.. could get a few pointers
from irc(not efnet though ;)) Just because I put no
emotion in my emails don't make it a violent attack,
All the time except ones mentioned are pure
statements/facts.

Anyway, to the ones who are the real aggitators(you
know who you are), the ones who like provoking people
to make them sound even worse, I can certainly make
ruby-talk a living hell for you if you keep iit up. As
I said the internet was secure, I can make ruby-talk a
bloody mess if you don't want to comply.

About my emails I usually send, they are always
written without emotion. I don't care how you
interpret them, but thats exactly how I write them.
there was a few email which I sent out because I was
mad at something else, like the linux bitch one. Also,
the one about sean, and lothar was kinda funny..
because people talk behind everyones back in
#ruby-lang on freenode about people on the mailing
list. In channel and via privmsg. Not only me but some
of the members who have been on the list longer. Yah,
really childish I know, I guess its just a type of
wasting time, I didn't mean for it to come onto the
mailing list.

One other definition you(not everyone) people need to
learn about is a definition called arguing. Its not
trolling, and its certainly not vile. I know CS people
are usually poor at english so they make up words like
trolling, etc etc. It gets old, it got old 15 years
ago, and its still old. Learn how other people speak,
not everyone has the same attitude as *you*, and
certainly everybody is different. Not only by cultural
differences in the language, but by the usages of
other languages which people get used to in thier own
way.

I don't wish for anyone to dislike one just because
thier attitude. And this time it started just because
someone wanted to make a small fib which turned out to
be a big thread of a perfect waste of time. So you
will know what the right thing(tm) is when you get the
time to actually examine people from a distance
instead of trying to beat the dog with a stick and
expect it not to do anything.

Sure, I agree with a certain person waiting to send
email, however I also wouldn't like to be called wrong
especially when I might be right. As said before,
attitude has nothign to do with stone cold facts.
Facts are facts, no matter the person bringing them
out.

Not trying to blame or target anyone in this email, so
I won't mention any names. Getting along is nice sure,
arguments are also considered *fun* to some peopel no
matter how pointless they might be. I'l continue to
work on Ruby code, and hopefully I can release a great
big CMS to get people started on bigger and better
stuff(and fluff). I even thought just about messing
with usemod+the blitz scanner/checker for fun.
Sometimes it makes me think people just don't like
other people who don't immediately contribute back and
earn money off languages. Sure, I earn an efficient
amount of money off programming with ruby, and I
certainly have to eat. Not everyone has the luxury to
share thier knowledge with others, I wish I had time
to share all of mine(the ethical knowledge).

I'll be making very good contributions to the ruby
community. I've said this in the past, and I'll say it
again, "I don't give a damn about what people think."
Then why this email? I don't want any newcommers(or
regs) to think certain people are bad just because a
few other regulars think of a person as bad. One it
gives you and me a bad image later on, and two its
upsetting by 1. replying to the mailing list(which I'm
at fault too) and 2. its just a BWOT(big waste of
time).

Well, time to earn more food and a roof over head.

D. R.
---

For the Republic!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail...

11 Answers

Andreas Schwarz

10/31/2004 12:45:00 PM

Underbar Underbar wrote:
> I've been thinking to myself, and what someone else
> said, put together what a couple people said to come
> out to an all out systematic thinking process which

I got bored at this point.

> D. R.

Can you please stop changing the From-header for every post, or at least
put a tag like [dross] in the Subject line to make filtering easier?

Underbar Underbar

10/31/2004 1:13:00 PM

I come of to some people a bit rude unintentionally.
how about a seperate emails when it doesnt answer a
question or might contain information ex. "blah lied"
and just add header informtion to that?

D.R.

--- Andreas Schwarz <usenet@andreas-s.net> wrote:

> Underbar Underbar wrote:
> > I've been thinking to myself, and what someone
> else
> > said, put together what a couple people said to
> come
> > out to an all out systematic thinking process
> which
>
> I got bored at this point.
>
> > D. R.
>
> Can you please stop changing the From-header for
> every post, or at least
> put a tag like [dross] in the Subject line to make
> filtering easier?
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.co...

Jim Freeze

11/1/2004 4:38:00 AM

* Underbar Underbar <underbar_underbar@yahoo.com> [2004-10-31 14:41:47 +0900]:

> Anyway, to the ones who are the real aggitators(you
> know who you are), the ones who like provoking people
> to make them sound even worse, I can certainly make
> ruby-talk a living hell for you if you keep iit up. As
> I said the internet was secure, I can make ruby-talk a
> bloody mess if you don't want to comply.

Hmm, is this a threat or extortion? Or maybe it more like
'protection' for the neighborhood business.

In any case, it sounds like it could lead to a jailable offense.
I hope you reconsider.

> About my emails I usually send, they are always
> written without emotion. I don't care how you

I assume this email is excluded..

> Sure, I agree with a certain person waiting to send
> email, however I also wouldn't like to be called wrong
> especially when I might be right. As said before,
> attitude has nothign to do with stone cold facts.
> Facts are facts, no matter the person bringing them
> out.

You only had your assumption of the facts. You did not
know the exact URLs, the RBL's used, the time they were
queried or the voting system in effect. So any conclusions must
have been based pieces of data you had and the rest filled
in with your assumptions. Now your experience may
give a lot of weight to your assessment, but there is so much
missing data that anyone could make a case for reasonable doubt.
I am surprised at your dogmatic statements that you were
100% right on this point.
Surely a logical person like yourself can see the obvious fallacy
in stating anything as being absolute. "There are no absolutes
in science, abosolutely". :)

--
Jim Freeze

David Ross

11/1/2004 12:35:00 PM

jim@freeze.org wrote:

>* Underbar Underbar <underbar_underbar@yahoo.com> [2004-10-31 14:41:47 +0900]:
>
>
>
>>Anyway, to the ones who are the real aggitators(you
>>know who you are), the ones who like provoking people
>>to make them sound even worse, I can certainly make
>>ruby-talk a living hell for you if you keep iit up. As
>>I said the internet was secure, I can make ruby-talk a
>>bloody mess if you don't want to comply.
>>
>>
>
>Hmm, is this a threat or extortion? Or maybe it more like
>'protection' for the neighborhood business.
>
>In any case, it sounds like it could lead to a jailable offense.
>I hope you reconsider.
>
>

Bloody mess to them means they would see my every email. One click of a
script I created and automatically signs me up to one of several free
mail services(except the ones that use captchas. With a quick viewing
and type). And bada boom!

>
>
>>About my emails I usually send, they are always
>>written without emotion. I don't care how you
>>
>>
>
>I assume this email is excluded..
>
>
>
>>Sure, I agree with a certain person waiting to send
>>email, however I also wouldn't like to be called wrong
>>especially when I might be right. As said before,
>>attitude has nothign to do with stone cold facts.
>>Facts are facts, no matter the person bringing them
>>out.
>>
>>
>
>You only had your assumption of the facts. You did not
>know the exact URLs, the RBL's used, the time they were
>queried or the voting system in effect. So any conclusions must
>have been based pieces of data you had and the rest filled
>in with your assumptions. Now your experience may
>give a lot of weight to your assessment, but there is so much
>missing data that anyone could make a case for reasonable doubt.
>I am surprised at your dogmatic statements that you were
>100% right on this point.
>Surely a logical person like yourself can see the obvious fallacy
>in stating anything as being absolute. "There are no absolutes
>in science, abosolutely". :)
>
>
>
>
I had no assumptions, I viewed the emails and crossreferenced each email
to the topic listed in past emails. I had no assumptions, if I did I
wouldn't have sent the email. Also, I try my best to write without
emotion, I don't really get excited anymore, email are emails are emails
that contain information. No excitement here.

David Ross

David Ross

11/1/2004 12:40:00 PM

dross@code-exec.net wrote:

> jim@freeze.org wrote:
>
>> * Underbar Underbar <underbar_underbar@yahoo.com> [2004-10-31
>> 14:41:47 +0900]:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, to the ones who are the real aggitators(you
>>> know who you are), the ones who like provoking people
>>> to make them sound even worse, I can certainly make
>>> ruby-talk a living hell for you if you keep iit up. As
>>> I said the internet was secure, I can make ruby-talk a
>>> bloody mess if you don't want to comply.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, is this a threat or extortion? Or maybe it more like
>> 'protection' for the neighborhood business.
>>
>> In any case, it sounds like it could lead to a jailable offense.
>> I hope you reconsider.
>>
>>
>
> Bloody mess to them means they would see my every email. One click of
> a script I created and automatically signs me up to one of several
> free mail services(except the ones that use captchas. With a quick
> viewing and type). And bada boom!
>
Newsgroups will work too. bada boom!

>>
>>
>>> About my emails I usually send, they are always
>>> written without emotion. I don't care how you
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume this email is excluded..
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sure, I agree with a certain person waiting to send
>>> email, however I also wouldn't like to be called wrong
>>> especially when I might be right. As said before,
>>> attitude has nothign to do with stone cold facts.
>>> Facts are facts, no matter the person bringing them
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You only had your assumption of the facts. You did not
>> know the exact URLs, the RBL's used, the time they were queried or
>> the voting system in effect. So any conclusions must
>> have been based pieces of data you had and the rest filled
>> in with your assumptions. Now your experience may
>> give a lot of weight to your assessment, but there is so much
>> missing data that anyone could make a case for reasonable doubt.
>> I am surprised at your dogmatic statements that you were
>> 100% right on this point.
>> Surely a logical person like yourself can see the obvious fallacy
>> in stating anything as being absolute. "There are no absolutes
>> in science, abosolutely". :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I had no assumptions, I viewed the emails and crossreferenced each
> email to the topic listed in past emails. I had no assumptions, if I
> did I wouldn't have sent the email. Also, I try my best to write
> without emotion, I don't really get excited anymore, email are emails
> are emails that contain information. No excitement here.
>
> David Ross
>
>
>
>

David Ross
--
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyar...

Jim Freeze

11/1/2004 1:22:00 PM

* dross@code-exec.net <dross@code-exec.net> [2004-11-01 21:34:39 +0900]:

> I had no assumptions, I viewed the emails and crossreferenced each email

Well, maybe I missed the data. Please fill in the missing data for me:

RBL1:
RBL2:
RBL3:
BAD URL1:
BAD URL2:
TIME OF ACCESS FOR URL1:
TIME OF ACCESS FOR URL2:

TIME OF QUERY OF RBL1 ABOUT URL1
TIME OF QUERY OF RBL2 ABOUT URL1
TIME OF QUERY OF RBL3 ABOUT URL1

RESPONSE OF RBL1 FOR URL1
RESPONSE OF RBL2 FOR URL1
RESPONSE OF RBL3 FOR URL1

TIME OF QUERY OF RBL1 ABOUT URL2
TIME OF QUERY OF RBL2 ABOUT URL2
TIME OF QUERY OF RBL3 ABOUT URL2

RESPONSE OF RBL1 FOR URL2
RESPONSE OF RBL2 FOR URL2
RESPONSE OF RBL3 FOR URL2

ALGORITHM USED FOR RESPONSES:

DECISION FOR URL1
DECISION FOR URL2

If you don't have all this information, you made an assumption.

--
Jim Freeze

Peter Hickman

11/1/2004 1:53:00 PM

Underbar Underbar wrote:

[delitia]

>About my emails I usually send, they are always
>written without emotion. I don't care how you
>interpret them, but thats exactly how I write them.
>
>

Then this whole long winded rant is a lie. If you didn't care about how
we interpreted them, which will affect how people respond to them, then
you wouldn't be driven to write this very long and cumbersome email.

[delitia]

You're a bot aren't you? It looks like writing but it makes no sense.
Failing that there is a concept you should become familiar with ==> focus.

David Ross

11/1/2004 2:08:00 PM

Peter Hickman wrote:

> Underbar Underbar wrote:
>
> [delitia]
>
>> About my emails I usually send, they are always
>> written without emotion. I don't care how you
>> interpret them, but thats exactly how I write them.
>>
>>
>
> Then this whole long winded rant is a lie. If you didn't care about
> how we interpreted them, which will affect how people respond to them,
> then you wouldn't be driven to write this very long and cumbersome email.

New people to the list often do what others do by trying to mimic what
others perform. I could give great upsetting exampes of this in the US
political garbage. I don't want other people having influence over who
is good/bad by simple emails of hate. Of course there are people who can
make up thier own decision, but there are many people who follow others.
Its a psychological deal on how people act.

>
>
> [delitia]
>
>
> You're a bot aren't you? It looks like writing but it makes no sense.
> Failing that there is a concept you should become familiar with ==>
> focus.
>
>
>
/me checks code, Only if you consider life robotic since DNA are
billions of instructions. The way I think is very *sporadic, theres no
determination on what I could end up talking about.*

David Ross

Bill Atkins

11/1/2004 2:23:00 PM

DAVID ROSS!

_SHUT UP_

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:07:49 +0900, dross@code-exec.net
<dross@code-exec.net> wrote:
> Peter Hickman wrote:
>
>
>
> > Underbar Underbar wrote:
> >
> > [delitia]
> >
> >> About my emails I usually send, they are always
> >> written without emotion. I don't care how you
> >> interpret them, but thats exactly how I write them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Then this whole long winded rant is a lie. If you didn't care about
> > how we interpreted them, which will affect how people respond to them,
> > then you wouldn't be driven to write this very long and cumbersome email.
>
> New people to the list often do what others do by trying to mimic what
> others perform. I could give great upsetting exampes of this in the US
> political garbage. I don't want other people having influence over who
> is good/bad by simple emails of hate. Of course there are people who can
> make up thier own decision, but there are many people who follow others.
> Its a psychological deal on how people act.
>
> >
> >
> > [delitia]
> >
> >
> > You're a bot aren't you? It looks like writing but it makes no sense.
> > Failing that there is a concept you should become familiar with ==>
> > focus.
> >
> >
> >
> /me checks code, Only if you consider life robotic since DNA are
> billions of instructions. The way I think is very *sporadic, theres no
> determination on what I could end up talking about.*
>
> David Ross
>
>

James Britt

11/1/2004 2:33:00 PM

Bill Atkins wrote:

> DAVID ROSS!
>
> _SHUT UP_

May I suggest that the issue is no longer Mr. Ross, but those who
continue to publicly engage him?

James

comp.lang.ruby

mmmmmmmmmmm ruby-talk

Underbar Underbar

Andreas Schwarz

Underbar Underbar

Jim Freeze

David Ross

David Ross

Jim Freeze

Peter Hickman

David Ross

Bill Atkins

James Britt

x Login to ForumsZone